Podcasts about akhil reed amar

Ali Velshi is joined by Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Akhil Amar, President & CEO of International Rescue Committee David Miliband, Professor of Economics & Public Policy at University of Michigan Justin Wolfers, Special Correspondent at Vanity Fair Molly Jong-Fast

This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one applicant over another on the basis of that applicant’s race. College admissions offices across the country will have to alter the policies they’ve used for decades. How will they adapt? Will facially race-neutral policies aiming to achieve a desired racial balance for accepted classes be created as a proxy? Will colleges attempt to sidestep the ruling or find legally permissible means of achieving their objectives? If so, how will the courts respond?Some observers argue that the decision in SFFA should be expected to affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts outside of college admissions. Will public and private employers have to change their hiring practices? Will competitive K-12 schools adjust their admissions policies? What about scholarships? Government contracting? How far-reaching will the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately be?This panel will provide a comprehensive review of SFFA and explore its consequences.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law SchoolHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolMr. Devon Westhill, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, United States Court of International TradeOverflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

Is Trump's style of anti-immigrant fake populism infectious?- is it spreading to the rest of the world? Or are we seeing the worldwide influence of Russian propaganda?Plus- Thom reads from "The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era" by Akhil Reed Amar.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Akhil Reed Amar, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, gives insights into the birth of the U.S. Constitution and an expanded historical narrative of its first half century. Amar, an American legal scholar, delivered this forum address on September 26, 2023. You can access the talk here.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Very few texts have been such a lighting rod for interpretation, counter-interpretation and misinterpretation as the American Constitution. This week, MSNBC host and Citizen board member sits down to discuss this polarizing document with professors and authors Akhil Reed Amar and Jeffrey Rosen. 

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 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. 

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 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. 

Ali Velshi is joined by Fmr. Rep. Fred Upton (R- Michigan), Charlie Savage, MSNBC Contributor, Robin Marty, Operations Director at West Alabama Women's, Jenice Fountain, Executive Director at Yellowhammer Fund Center, Rev. Dr. William Barber II, President & Senior Lecturer at Repairers of the Breach, Rep. Don Bacon (R- Nebraska), Andrei Kozyrev, Fmr. Foreign Minister of Russia, and Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University

On this episode, Akhil Reed Amar joins Mark Bauerlein to discuss his new book, "The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840."

On this episode, Akhil Reed Amar joins Mark Bauerlein to discuss his new book, “The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840.”

The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The final day of the conference will feature the fourteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.RESOLVED: The U.S. Constitution limits the role of state courts and executives in redistricting under Article I, Section 4, Clause I.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Berkeley Law, University of CaliforniaModerator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law

What's the case for limiting the time or term of Supreme Court justices? Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School made his case at the Cato Institute's Constitution Day festivities in September. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United States has long been admired as the world's most stable and enduring democracy. However, many experts now believe there is a growing and real risk the country could plunge into civil war. Deep political divisions, weakened institutions, racial unrest, allegations of voter fraud, and partisan news coverage are eviscerating social cohesion and political compromise. Red and Blue America are separated by more than ideology; their disagreements are about basic fundamental values that are in irresolvable conflict. The key pillars of a functioning democracy have been destroyed, and the country is courting a period of sustained violent unrest. Others argue that predictions of widespread civil conflict are overblown. Civil Wars require cohesive and large geographical fighting blocs. So called “red” and “blue” states like Texas and California are not nearly as homogenous as pundits claims (46.5% of Texans voted for Joe Biden). Protests, battles, and blockades are a much more likely scenario than a descent into full scale civil war. And finally, the widespread belief that an overwhelming number of Americans support political violence is factually incorrect, and promoting this narrative is dangerous. Those who prophesize the demise of US democracy must remember that conflict can escalate from misperceptions of the intentions of rival groups and stoking fear can lead to actual violence. Arguing for the  motion is David Blight, award-winning civil war historian and the Sterling Professor of History and American Studies at Yale University. Arguing against the motion is Akhil Reed Amar, American constitutional and legal scholar and the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University QUOTES: DAVID BLIGHT “Until we find a way out of the straight jacket that the undemocratic Senate and the electoral college holds over us, we are on a collision course with more and more elections like 2020.” AKHIL REED AMAR “While we are deeply divided, in every state there are shades of purple. And that means there is less likely to be the sharp geographic divide of the sort that characterized the 1850s” Sources:  CNN, Fox News, CBC, HBO, PBS The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to podcast@munkdebates.com.   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Reza Dahya

On this episode of the Sharon Says So Podcast, Sharon continues her conversation with constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar. They shift gears a little from the U.S. Constitution to a discussion about the controversy around Independent State Legislature Theory. You may have heard it talked about in connection with the upcoming supreme court case, Moore vs. Harper, but the nuances can be tricky to understand. Amar explains the obscurities of the theory and why state legislatures should not be considered independent from the state constitutions that gave them birth. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of the Sharon Says So Podcast, Sharon sits down with constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar to talk about the importance of treasuring the U.S. Constitution. What we have in common as Americans–Americans who live in different geographical locations, are raised with different experiences and cultures, and even often speak different languages–is our Constitution and the historical events and documents that shaped the nation. Amar shares his journey as a first generation American, from the gift of citizenship at birth, to the evolution of his opinion on the importance of the nation's constitutional history. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ali Velshi is joined by Olivia Troye, Chief Political Strategist at Renew America Movement, Evan McMullin, U.S. Senate Candidate for Utah, Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D) South Carolina, Akhil Reed Amar, Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, Inna Sovsun, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Jennifer Rubin, Opinion Writer at the Washington Post, Tim O'Brien, Senior Columnist at Bloomberg Opinion, Terrell Jermaine Starr, Non-resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, Homi K. Bhabha, Professor of Humanities, English & Comparative Literature Departments at Harvard University

In 2018, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute hosted its first annual RISE conference. Standing for the Reagan Institute Summit on Education, RISE 2018 was a day-long bipartisan conference assessing the American education landscape in commemoration of the 35th anniversary of the seminal report: A Nation at Risk. RISE 2018 took place on April 12, 2018 in Washington, D.C. There were over a dozen panels in the day-long session focusing on the state of education, reducing recidivism through postsecondary education opportunities, the need for broadband access throughout schools and more. The closing panel was entitled An Educated Citizenry and it was a discussion between US Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, as moderated by Dr. Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University. During the hour long panel, the justices discussed everything from the importance of engaged citizenry and getting involved, to dealing with dissenting opinions, to the importance of just breaking bread with your fellow colleagues or classmates to connect on a more one-on-one level.

Just over one month ago, Politico published a leaked draft opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, a nearly unprecedented breach of the high Court's norms of non-disclosure until the moment an opinion is officially released. Now that it is June the Court is likely to release its official decision in the Mississippi case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision in this case could overturn the 1973  Roe v. Wade precedent which established that abortion rights were an extension of an implied Right to Privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe is overturned it is most likely that each individual sate would be left to decide legality and access to termination services within its own boundaites. . And according to the Guttmacher Institute, 26 states are certain or likely to ban or severely restrict the procedure.  Planned Parenthood estimates that 36 million women – more than half of all women of reproductive age in the United States – live in one of those states. The loss of rights is not consistent with the American narrative of ourselves. American exceptionalism. The shining city of the hill. Here, on this soil is where the arc of history is meant to bend toward justice, offering ever more access to liberty, equality, justice. But is the arc of American history always bending toward justice? We look back through history with Blair Kelley, is a Professor of history at North Carolina State University. She is also the author of “Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship.” And some legal experts and advocates worry that this Court decision could threaten other basic rights like access to contraception, same-sex marriage, and interracial marriage. We speak with Akhil Reed Amar, a Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, looking forward to what may happen next.

Just over one month ago, Politico published a leaked draft opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, a nearly unprecedented breach of the high Court's norms of non-disclosure until the moment an opinion is officially released. Now that it is June the Court is likely to release its official decision in the Mississippi case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision in this case could overturn the 1973  Roe v. Wade precedent which established that abortion rights were an extension of an implied Right to Privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe is overturned it is most likely that each individual sate would be left to decide legality and access to termination services within its own boundaites. . And according to the Guttmacher Institute, 26 states are certain or likely to ban or severely restrict the procedure.  Planned Parenthood estimates that 36 million women – more than half of all women of reproductive age in the United States – live in one of those states. The loss of rights is not consistent with the American narrative of ourselves. American exceptionalism. The shining city of the hill. Here, on this soil is where the arc of history is meant to bend toward justice, offering ever more access to liberty, equality, justice. But is the arc of American history always bending toward justice? We look back through history with Blair Kelley, is a Professor of history at North Carolina State University. She is also the author of “Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship.” And some legal experts and advocates worry that this Court decision could threaten other basic rights like access to contraception, same-sex marriage, and interracial marriage. We speak with Akhil Reed Amar, a Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, looking forward to what may happen next.

Akhil Reed Amar is an outstanding teacher of the Constitution, and American history. He is a professor of law at Yale. He was born in Michigan to immigrant parents from India. The latest of his several books on the Constitution is “The Words That Made Us.” He recently wrote about Roe vs. Wade, explaining why […]

Akhil Reed Amar is an outstanding teacher of the Constitution, and American history. He is a professor of law at Yale. He was born in Michigan to immigrant parents from India. The latest of his several books on the Constitution is “The Words That Made Us.” He recently wrote about Roe vs. Wade, explaining why he, a pro-choice Democrat, thinks it is a bad decision. He does a podcast called “Amarica’... Source

Akhil Reed Amar is an outstanding teacher of the Constitution, and American history. He is a professor of law at Yale. He was born in Michigan to immigrant parents from India. The latest of his several books on the Constitution is “The Words That Made Us.” He recently wrote about Roe vs. Wade, explaining why he, a pro-choice Democrat, thinks it is a bad decision. He does a podcast called “Amarica'... Source

Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale university, where he's been teaching constitutional law since the ripe old age of 26. He is the author of more than a hundred law review articles and several award-winning books. Amar's work has been cited in more than 40 supreme court cases—more than anyone else in his generation—including in the shocking draft opinion by Justice Alito that was leaked to the press last week. What may be confusing about that is that Amar is a self-described liberal, pro-choice Democrat. So why is Alito citing his work in an opinion to overturn Roe? Today, Amar explains why he, in fact, agrees with Alito, what overturning Roe might mean for the country, what the leak says about the culture of American law, and what supporters of legal abortion, like himself, should do now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before the National Student Symposium begins, the Federalist Society's Faculty Division will host a panel of young legal scholars, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. All early arrivals are welcome to sit in and hear some of the exciting scholarship these young legal scholars are working on before the National Student Symposium. For more information, visit https://fedsoc.org/events/2022-young-legal-scholars-panel. The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a panel of young legal scholars before the National Student Symposium began, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. Featuring:The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. MassachusettsProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonCommenter Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawElection Emergencies: Voting in Times of PandemicProf. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor, Florida State University College of LawCommenter Prof. Bertrall Ross, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawOf Statutes and Spirits: Interpretation on the English High Courts, c. 1800-2020Jonathan Green, Law Clerk to Judge Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. CircuitCommenter Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Reconstructing Reconstruction Era RightsProf. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State UniversityCommenter Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University

Theories of originalism and living constitutionalism currently vie for approval in the courts. Originalists find that popular sovereignty can only come from ratification and legislation. Living constitutionalists fear binding the living by the votes of the dead. What would Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton think of this debate? Did the founding era public expect the original public meaning to control interpretive debates? Were the American Founders themselves originalists? In a related question, the panel will also explore the usefulness of The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist essays as interpretive tools for identifying the original public meaning of the Bill of Rights. Just how persuasive are the Anti-Federalist concerns considering their position was ultimately lost and the Constitution was ratified? How much did the “losing” arguments contribute to the original public meaning and what light do the founding era debates shed on the proper tools for constitutional interpretation? Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable William H. Pryor, United States Court of Appeals Eleventh CircuitProf. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale UniversityProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

There is a folk wisdom that connects the American War of Independence’s “no taxation without representation” with today’s skepticism of Washington, DC and centralized power. The Anti-Federalists were a broad coalition, but most Anti-Federalists shared a dislike of a strong centralized government and believed that many small republics would best protect the individual. Some Anti-Federalists argued that without a bill of rights the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Even after ratification, some Founders, such as Jefferson, Mason, and Henry, maintained that the Federalists had in fact “betrayed” the “popular Revolutionary Spirit of ’76” and its desire for “general and individual liberty.” However, once the Jefferson-led Democrat-Republicans—primarily made up of and appealing to the old Anti-Federalist coalition—took office they did not seek to abolish, or significantly alter, this new form of governance. Why not? Did the Anti-Federalists plant the seeds, and prefer to nurture the growth of populism in America?Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitProf. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Prof. Michelle Kundmueller, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion UniversityProf. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

BONUS DISCUSSION:  Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, Connecticut, is the guest for the 447th program in the "Relevant Or Irrelevant" series.  Join the "ROI" team as they discuss "The Words That Made Us:  America's Constitutional Conversation:  1760-1840" with Professor Amar.The host of this episode is Jay Swords.  History buffs for episode #447 are Brett Monnard and Terri Toppler.This series is recorded at KALA-FM, St. Ambrose University, Davenport, Iowa, USA.

Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, Connecticut, is the guest for the 447th program in the "Relevant Or Irrelevant" series.  Join the "ROI" team as they discuss "The Words That Made Us:  America's Constitutional Conversation:  1760-1840" with Professor Amar.The host of this episode is Jay Swords.  History buffs for episode #447 are Brett Monnard and Terri Toppler.This series is recorded at KALA-FM, St. Ambrose University, Davenport, Iowa, USA.

Procedural due process When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. For example, such a process is due when a government agency seeks to terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits. The Court has also ruled that the Due Process Clause requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where the judge has a conflict of interest. For example, in Caperton v A T Massey Coal Company (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court. Incorporation. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation". Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians. According to legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the same individual rights as the federal government; all these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment. By the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states. The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments, along with the Excessive Fines Clause and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v Carey. The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states, but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause does apply to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal". The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment became the last right to be incorporated when the Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v Indiana (2019) that right to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause

The United States has long been admired as the world's most stable and enduring democracy. However, many experts now believe there is a growing and real risk the country could plunge into civil war. Deep political divisions, weakened institutions, racial unrest, allegations of voter fraud, and partisan news coverage are eviscerating social cohesion and political compromise. Red and Blue America are separated by more than ideology; their disagreements are about basic fundamental values that are in irresolvable conflict. The key pillars of a functioning democracy have been destroyed, and the country is courting a period of sustained violent unrest. Others argue that predictions of widespread civil conflict are overblown. Civil Wars require cohesive and large geographical fighting blocs. So called “red” and “blue” states like Texas and California are not nearly as homogenous as pundits claims (46.5% of Texans voted for Joe Biden). Protests, battles, and blockades are a much more likely scenario than a descent into full scale civil war. And finally, the widespread belief that an overwhelming number of Americans support political violence is factually incorrect, and promoting this narrative is dangerous. Those who prophesize the demise of US democracy must remember that conflict can escalate from misperceptions of the intentions of rival groups and stoking fear can lead to actual violence. Arguing for the  motion is David Blight, award-winning civil war historian and the Sterling Professor of History and American Studies at Yale University. Arguing against the motion is Akhil Reed Amar, American constitutional and legal scholar and the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University QUOTES: DAVID BLIGHT “Until we find a way out of the straight jacket that the undemocratic Senate and the electoral college holds over us, we are on a collision course with more and more elections like 2020.” AKHIL REED AMAR “While we are deeply divided, in every state there are shades of purple. And that means there is less likely to be the sharp geographic divide of the sort that characterized the 1850s” Sources:  CNN, Fox News, CBC, HBO, PBS The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to podcast@munkdebates.com.   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Reza Dahya

The Electoral College has been a source of much debate throughout American history. The controversy was amplified following the 2000 and 2016 elections after the runners-up in the popular vote were able to claim the presidency. In a conversation with David M. Rubenstein, esteemed constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar uncovers the fascinating history of the nation's electoral process. Recorded on January 22, 2021 

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Classrooms, Curricula, and the Law."Competing legal and cultural interests are at play in the push to implement critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion-based curricula at all levels from elementary school through higher education. Some argue that state bans are necessary to combat a divisive, stigmatizing, and arguably unlawful set of educational practices. Others take a libertarian approach, casting classrooms as marketplaces of ideas and criticizing proponents of CRT-bans as opponents of free speech. Still others praise these educational practices for raising greater awareness of American’s historical injustices, arguing that this is a necessary step towards a more equitable and inclusive society. In the tradition of the First Amendment, this convergence of issues leaves much room for a lively debate.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolMr. Josh Hammer, Opinion Editor, Newsweek; Research Fellow, Edmund Burke FoundationMs. Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationMs. Letitia Todd Kim, Managing Director, Foundation Against Intolerance & RacismMr. Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationModerator: Hon. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Religious Liberty after Fulton v. City of Philadelphia."Fulton v. City of Philadelphia was a victory for religious liberty, but it is unclear how broad its implications will be for other cases and what the opinions in Fulton portend for the future of Employment Division v. Smith. The Court’s majority opinion relied on provisions of Philadelphia’s foster care agency contracting process, but the majority also potentially reworked Smith’s understanding of when government regulation is "generally applicable." Meanwhile, several justices indicated a willingness to revisit Smith altogether, though what a post-Smith free exercise jurisprudence would look like remains unclear. This panel will explore these and other questions raised by Fulton and the future of religious free exercise.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMs. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyModerator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Nine justices hold tremendous power. Advocates on the left see a Supreme Court out of touch with the electorate, obstructed by partisan interests, and rendered illegitimate by years of controversial appointments. But those opposed believe dramatically changing one of the three core pillars of American government would undermine the court's legitimacy.  Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with The Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law asks: Should we expand the Supreme Court?   Arguing in favor of the motion is Dhalia Lithwick, legal commentator and Slate's Amicus podcast host with Tamara Brummer of advocacy group Demand Justice. Arguing against the motion is Carter Phillips, a Supreme Court and appellate litigator with Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Yale University. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

What do Americans have in common? Scholar Akhil Reed Amar says the one thing every single American shares is the United States Constitution. He shares why he wants Americans to better understand the words that made us. In this rebroadcast, Akhil Reed Amar joins Meghna Chakrabarti.

When the US Constitution won popular approval in 1788, it was the culmination of thirty years of passionate argument over the nature of government. But ratification hardly ended the conversation. For the next half century, ordinary Americans and statesmen alike continued to wrestle with weighty questions in the halls of government and in the pages of newspapers. Should the nation's borders be expanded? Should America allow slavery to spread westward? What rights should Indian nations hold? What was the proper role of the judicial branch? In The Words that Made Us, Akhil Reed Amar unites history and law in a vivid narrative of the biggest constitutional questions early Americans confronted, and he expertly assesses the answers they offered. His account of the document's origins and consolidation is a guide for anyone seeking to properly understand America's Constitution today.

As Americans look forward to celebrating Independence Day this holiday weekend, this week's episode dives into the Declaration of Independence. We trace where its words and its ideals came from and how it went on to influence state constitutions, the United States constitution, and other key American texts including President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, author of 'The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation 1760-1840,' and Steve Calabresi of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

What do Americans have in common? Scholar Akhil Reed Amar says the one thing every single American shares is the United States Constitution. He shares why he wants Americans to better understand the words that made us. Akhil Reed Amar joins Meghna Chakrabarti.

Former president Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, on charges of incitement to insurrection, is set to begin in the U.S. Senate tomorrow (February 9). For a preview, we turn to an esteemed constitutional scholar and presidential historian whose work has been cited in Supreme Court opinions more often any other active legal scholar's.  Akhil Reed Amar is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Law School.  He has won awards from both the American Bar Association and the Federalist Society.  He hosts the podcast, Amarica’s Constitution, and he is the author of the forthcoming book, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840, to be published this May.  His most recent opinion piece -- suggesting some potent witnesses for the Senate trial -- appears today in the New York Daily News. President Joe Biden and the Democrats have been in a hurry to wrap up negotiations on their $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan -- with or without Republican support --  in part because the impending impeachment trial will pose a powerful distraction for lawmakers in both chambers.   The Republican opposition to the Biden plan is premised, in part, on the cost.  We also note the cost to the American taxpayer that Mr. Trump and his supporters have created in their insistence on fabricating assertions about the validity of the election, and the riot at the Capital last month.   From legal fees the government has had to pay in frivolous lawsuits, security for poll workers whose lives have been threatened, repairs to the Capital building after the insurrection and the thousands of National Guard troops deployed to Washington since January 6, the Washington Post estimates that the government has already spent more than a half a billion dollars.   And what will the cost to democracy be if Mr. Trump is acquitted of the impeachment charge he faces tomorrow? WYPR will carry NPR’s coverage of the historic proceedings tomorrow, right after Midday, at 1:00pm Eastern. Akhil Reed Amar joins us on Zoom… See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

The debate continues. Lathania and Steph talked about the origins of the Electoral College last week, but with one glaring omission: the role slavery played in its creation. How big a role did it play? And even with so much opposition, is it realistic to abolish the Electoral College? How would our elections work without it? We love to hear from our listeners! Email us questions at info@sowhatdowehave.com, or follow us on Instagram and Twitter: @lathaniaband @stephkrider Edited by David Hartman/Black Bear MediaEpisode resources: Akhil Reed Amar in Time and Vox

With the recent passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there's been a lot of debate about how much power the Supreme Court should really have. We tend to think of the Supreme Court justices as all-powerful guardians of the constitution, issuing momentous rulings from on high. They seem at once powerful, and unknowable; all lacy collars and black robes. But they haven’t always been so, you know, supreme. On this episode of More Perfect, we go all the way back to the case that, in a lot of ways, is the beginning of the court we know today. Also: we listen back to a mnemonic device (and song) that we created back in 2016 to help people remember the names of the justices. Listen, create a new one, and share with us! Tweet The key links: - Akhil Reed Amar's forthcoming book, The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era- Linda Monk's book, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution The key voices: - Linda Monk, author and constitutional scholar- Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale- Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale The key cases: - 1803: Marbury v. Madison- 1832: Worcester v. Georgia- 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1)- 1955: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (2) Additional music for this episode by Podington Bear. Special thanks to Dylan Keefe and Mitch Boyer for their work on the above video. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.      

Supreme Court oral arguments have resumed via telephone and our podcast hosts are nerding out. The court kicked off today with an interesting denial of cert from the Supreme Court on a case out of Kentucky involving Kim Davis, the county clerk who refused to certify marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015 for religious reasons. “This petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell,” Justice Thomas wrote in a statement on Monday joined by Justice Alito. “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix.” On today’s episode, our podcast hosts discuss the evolution of religious liberty and discrimination law, ongoing election disputes in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and the latest updates on the presidential campaign ad wars. Sarah and David wrap things up with a fun constitutional exercise by poking holes in the 25th Amendment and unpacking what happens when presidents die at different points in the cycle. Show Notes: -30 day free trial at The Dispatch, Divided We Fall by David French, Obergefell v. Hodges, Kim Davis v. David Ermold, “Applications and Implications of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment” by Akhil Reed Amar, “Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?” by Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar.

This national election year is haunted by worries about polarization, voter fraud and suppression, toxic social media and disinformation campaigns. What can an individual voter do about all that? Plenty. As part of its Campaign for Political Responsibility (CPR), the Committee of Seventy is promoting Five Habits of Highly Effective Citizens. Seventy's CEO David Thornburgh talks with journalist Chris Satullo about what those habits are, why they matter and what Seventy is doing to help people uphold them. Also, listen in as Fresh Air's Dave Davies interviews the two speakers at our annual luncheon, constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar and civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill.

The Electoral College: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Engineer: Amy Browne Key Discussion Points: The electoral college. its historical origins and the founders’ intent, The practical implications for modern American politics, Proposals for reform, including the National Popular Vote (NPV). Guests: Mark Brewer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Maine Jamie Raskin, Professor Law at American University Washington College of Law and U.S. Congressman representing Maryland’s 8th District Patrick Rosenstiel, CEO of Ainsley Shea, a Minneapolis-based public relations firm working to advance the National Popular Vote. To learn more, follow these links to related content: As American as Apple Pie? The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Slice of Power Emily Badger in The New York Times, November, 2016. The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states Sean Illing interviews Akhil Reed Amar in Vox, November, 2016. The Electoral College badly distorts the vote. And it’s going to get worse. Katy Collin in The Washington Post, November, 2016. Don’t Believe the Myths about the National Popular Vote, Saul Anuzis, The Hill, May, 2018. Constitutional Law Professor Drops Bombshell on `Forgotten Americans’ at Democrats’ Electoral College Meeting, Jamie Raskin, Alternet December, 2016. An Idea for Electoral College Reform That Both Parties Might Actually Like, Edward B. Foley, Politico January, 2019. Alternative view: National Popular Vote would amplify Maine voices and empower small states, Patrick Rosenstiel in the Maine Wire, March 10, 2019. The all-volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Sheila Kirby, Ann Luther, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn FMI re League of Women Voters of Maine: www.lwvme.org

The Electoral College: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Engineer: Amy Browne Key Discussion Points: The electoral college. its historical origins and the founders’ intent, The practical implications for modern American politics, Proposals for reform, including the National Popular Vote (NPV). Guests: Mark Brewer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Maine Jamie Raskin, Professor Law at American University Washington College of Law and U.S. Congressman representing Maryland’s 8th District Patrick Rosenstiel, CEO of Ainsley Shea, a Minneapolis-based public relations firm working to advance the National Popular Vote. To learn more, follow these links to related content: As American as Apple Pie? The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Slice of Power Emily Badger in The New York Times, November, 2016. The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states Sean Illing interviews Akhil Reed Amar in Vox, November, 2016. The Electoral College badly distorts the vote. And it’s going to get worse. Katy Collin in The Washington Post, November, 2016. Don’t Believe the Myths about the National Popular Vote, Saul Anuzis, The Hill, May, 2018. Constitutional Law Professor Drops Bombshell on `Forgotten Americans’ at Democrats’ Electoral College Meeting, Jamie Raskin, Alternet December, 2016. An Idea for Electoral College Reform That Both Parties Might Actually Like, Edward B. Foley, Politico January, 2019. Alternative view: National Popular Vote would amplify Maine voices and empower small states, Patrick Rosenstiel in the Maine Wire, March 10, 2019. The all-volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Sheila Kirby, Ann Luther, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn FMI re League of Women Voters of Maine: www.lwvme.org

Michael Medved’s guest, Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar, tries to answer the question if there is any hope of de-escalating the madness stemming from the unbelievable level of partisan politics.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Townhall Review – September 29, 2018 Hugh Hewitt looks at and comments on the Democrat's last-minute desperate attacks aimed at derailing, if not ending, the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U. S. Supreme Court. Michael Medved’s guest, Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar, tries to answer the question if there is any hope of de-escalating the madness stemming from the unbelievable level of partisan politics. Hugh Hewitt talks to ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman and Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired from his job because of his belief in traditional marriage. Larry Elder wonders why golf fans, composed mainly of older white males, are so excited and supportive of Tiger Woods and his recent PGA tournament win, when so many claim that racism is rampant. Dennis Prager comments on left-wing extremist’s harassment of Ted Cruz and his wife while they were dining at a restaurant.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week at In The Past Lane, the history podcast, I speak with historian Andrew Shankman about his new book, Original Intents: Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the American Founding. It’s a conversation that’s perfectly timed for the Senate hearings on President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. That’s because Kavanaugh adheres to a judicial philosophy known as originalism that argues judges must make their rulings based on a close reading of the Constitution that determines the original intent of the Founders. It’s a neat and tidy idea that suggests a commitment to objectivity and a faithfulness to the vision of the Founders. But as Andrew Shankman makes clear, there was no single, original intent because the Founders disagreed on nearly everything when it came to the Constitution. In the course of our discussion, Andrew Shankman explains: How Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison initially agreed on many things, including a fear that the republic needed a stronger central government to avoid a descent into anarchy. How eventually major differences emerged among these men over whether the government could exercise unstated but “implied powers” of the Constitution, or only powers that were explicitly enumerated in the document. Why it’s impossible, despite what so-called originalists claim, to deduce an original intent of the Founders in the Constitution. Why originalism is ahistorical and ignores the historical process and historical context. Why we shouldn’t revere the Founders and more than they revered each other.  Recommended reading:  Andrew Shankman, Original Intents: Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the American Founding (Oxford University Press, 2018) Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography Richard Beeman, Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution David O. Stewart, The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 More info about Andrew Shankman - website Follow In The Past Lane on Twitter  @InThePastLane Instagram  @InThePastLane Facebook https://www.facebook.com/InThePastLanePodcast/ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeZMGFqoAASwvSJ1cpZOEAA  Music for This Episode Jay Graham, ITPL Intro (JayGMusic.com) Kevin McCleod, “Impact Moderato” (Free Music Archive) Andy Cohen, “Trophy Endorphins” (Free Music Archive) Jason Shaw, "Acoustic Meditation,” (Free Music Archive) Jon Luc Hefferman, “Winter Trek” (Free Music Archive) The Bell, “I Am History” (Free Music Archive) Production Credits Executive Producer: Lulu Spencer Technical Advisors: Holly Hunt and Jesse Anderson Podcasting Consultant: Dave Jackson of the School of Podcasting Photographer: John Buckingham Graphic Designer: Maggie Cellucci Website by: ERI Design Legal services: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too Social Media management: The Pony Express Risk Assessment: Little Big Horn Associates Growth strategies: 54 40 or Fight © In The Past Lane, 2018 Recommended History Podcasts Ben Franklin’s World with Liz Covart @LizCovart The Age of Jackson Podcast @AgeofJacksonPod Backstory podcast – the history behind today’s headlines @BackstoryRadio Past Present podcast with Nicole Hemmer, Neil J. Young, and Natalia Petrzela @PastPresentPod 99 Percent Invisible with Roman Mars @99piorg Slow Burn podcast about Watergate with @leoncrawl The Memory Palace – with Nate DiMeo, story teller extraordinaire @thememorypalace The Conspirators – creepy true crime stories from the American past @Conspiratorcast The History Chicks podcast @Thehistorychix My History Can Beat Up Your Politics @myhist Professor Buzzkill podcast – Prof B takes on myths about the past @buzzkillprof Footnoting History podcast @HistoryFootnote The History Author Show podcast @HistoryDean More Perfect podcast - the history of key US Supreme Court cases @Radiolab Revisionist History with Malcolm Gladwell @Gladwell Radio Diaries with Joe Richman @RadioDiaries DIG history podcast @dig_history The Story Behind – the hidden histories of everyday things @StoryBehindPod Studio 360 with Kurt Andersen – specifically its American Icons series @Studio360show Uncivil podcast – fascinating takes on the legacy of the Civil War in contemporary US @uncivilshow Stuff You Missed in History Class @MissedinHistory The Whiskey Rebellion – two historians discuss topics from today’s news @WhiskeyRebelPod American History Tellers ‏@ahtellers The Way of Improvement Leads Home with historian John Fea @JohnFea1 The Bowery Boys podcast – all things NYC history @BoweryBoys Ridiculous History @RidiculousHSW The Rogue Historian podcast with historian @MKeithHarris The Road To Now podcast @Road_To_Now Retropod with @mikerosenwald

This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawProf. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawProf. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

Yale Law Professor and constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar joins LARB Legal Editor Dan Franzen for a discussion of his book, The Constitution Today; and how the new Trump Administration may represent a threat to the US constitutional system. From possible impeachment proceedings to travel bans already knocked down by District Courts to Administration challenges to the Free Press, it's clear the Trump Administration requires newfound vigilance for defenders of the Constitution. Also, Akhil explains one of his best known policy proposals: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (already adopted by ten states) that could transform American Presidential Elections so that the winner of the national popular vote becomes President.

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.

Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute explain how succession works and how it can be improved. It’s time for another edition of “Ask Jeff”! Submit your questions anonymously at bit.ly/askjeffpodcast or tweet them using #AskJeffNCC. Submissions close on Sunday, February 19. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Dan Meyer and Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute explain how succession works and how it can be improved. It’s time for another edition of “Ask Jeff”! Submit your questions anonymously at bit.ly/askjeffpodcast or tweet them using #AskJeffNCC. Submissions close on Sunday, February 19. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Dan Meyer and Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University explains the history and importance of the Bill of Rights on its 225th anniversary. This program was presented live at the National Constitution Center on December 15, 2016, as part of the annual Bill of Rights Day Book Festival. You can watch all of the day's conversations on Constitution Daily or at constitutioncenter.org. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and David Stotz, and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University explains the history and importance of the Bill of Rights on its 225th anniversary. This program was presented live at the National Constitution Center on December 15, 2016, as part of the annual Bill of Rights Day Book Festival. You can watch all of the day's conversations on Constitution Daily or at constitutioncenter.org. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and David Stotz, and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

This week, we hear from Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University and the author of The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of our Era. Amar discusses the origins and importance of the Constitution: when it was written, why it was written, why he calls it the “political equivalent of the Big Bang.” Amar also talks about the important constitutional debates raging today, and frequently offers his take on not yet then president-elect Donald Trump.

Justice Scalia believed that the rule of law required a law of rules rather than of balancing tests. He favored rules (like the requirement the President be at least 35 years old) over standards (a requirement that the president be “a mature individual") because they lend themselves more to principled judicial enforcement. As a result, Justice Scalia revolutionized the caselaw he inherited from the Burger Court by eliminating as many balancing tests as possible and replacing them with rules. An example is his favoring of a rule of viewpoint neutrality in freedom of expression cases over separate treatment of various categories of speech. He believed that rules over standards promote the rule of law because they guarantee that judges will decide like cases alike rather than deciding each case on its facts using a totality of the circumstances test. Justice Scalia was so committed to rules over standards that he refused to enforce the non-delegation doctrine because to do so he would have had to employ a balancing test standard, however, in his last year on the bench, there were signs that Justice Scalia was moving away from this position. Justice Scalia also favored rules over standards because they limit lower federal and state court discretion in applying Supreme Court precedents as compared to balancing tests. The reemergence of rules over standards in Supreme Court opinions is another of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Victoria Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William Francis Kuntz II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Given the Trump Election and the difference between popular votes and Electoral votes, we explore the Electoral College. Who are the electors, anyway? And will the United States ever join the rest of the world, and adopt a popular vote for president?  Yale University Law & Political Science Professor Akhil Reed Amar says the Electoral College discourages voting, lessens the power of the states, and could work to the disadvantage of either major political party.  On this edition of Making Contact, Akhil Reed Amar speaks with Angela McKenzie of Initiative Radio about how the US constitution can be changed to create a more fair and just society. Featuring: Akhil Reed Amar, Yale University Sterling Law and Political Science professor; Angela McKenzie, Initiative Radio host. Credits: Guest producer, Angela McKenzie, Initiative Radio MC Producer: Andrew Stelzer Remixers: Nicolo Scolieri and Monica Lopez Producers: Anita Johnson, Marie Choi, Monica Lopez, R.J. Lozada Executive Director: Lisa Rudman Web Editor: Kwan Booth, Sabine Blaizin For More Information What is the Electoral College? America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live by Akhil Reed Amar discusses his book with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas National Popular Vote National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Gravel's justice of choice: Amar How the Electoral College Works The US electoral college explained: why we don't vote directly for a president Initiative Radio What is the Electoral College? Music: Alison Krauss & Union Station – Choctaw Hayride Damian Marley – It Was Written (instrumental) The post The Electoral College's Dirty History Encore appeared first on KPFA.

Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University, Edward Larson of Pepperdine University, and Douglas Bradburn of George Washington's Mount Vernon explore the constitutional legacy of our nation’s first President. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and Live at America’s Town Hall on iTunes or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at iTunes.com/Panoply. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University, Edward Larson of Pepperdine University, and Douglas Bradburn of George Washington's Mount Vernon explore the constitutional legacy of our nation’s first President. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and Live at America’s Town Hall on iTunes or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at iTunes.com/Panoply. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

We tend to think of the Supreme Court justices as all-powerful guardians of the constitution, issuing momentous rulings from on high. They seem at once powerful, and unknowable; all lacy collars and black robes. But they haven’t always been so, you know, supreme. On this episode of More Perfect, we go all the way back to the case that, in a lot of ways, is the beginning of the court we know today. Speaking of the current court, if you need help remembering the eight justices, we've made a mnemonic device (and song) to help you out. Listen and share below!  Tweet // The key links: - Akhil Reed Amar's forthcoming book, The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era- Linda Monk's book, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution The key voices: - Linda Monk, author and constitutional scholar- Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale- Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale The key cases: - 1803: Marbury v. Madison- 1832: Worcester v. Georgia- 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1)- 1955: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (2) Additional music for this episode by Podington Bear. Special thanks to Dylan Keefe and Mitch Boyer for their work on the above video.  

A week after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, his former clerk Rachel Barkow shares fond memories of a mentor with whom she didn’t always agree politically. And legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar suggests that Scalia didn’t always remain true to his originalist principles.You can listen to past episodes of Amicus here. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A week after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, his former clerk Rachel Barkow shares fond memories of a mentor with whom she didn’t always agree politically. And legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar explains why Scalia didn’t always remain true to his originalist principles. You can listen to past episodes of Amicus here. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here.  Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Akhil Reed Amar and Clifford Sloan talk about the 1803 Supreme Court case [Marbury v. Madison]. The court ruled unanimously that it was the ultimate arbiter of the constitutional validity of laws, establishing the principle of judicial review. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sep. 16, 2014. For the Library's annual Constitution Day lecture, Akhil Reed Amar discussed Magna Carta and its historical connection to the U.S. Constitution. Speaker Biography: Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches constitutional law at both Yale College and Yale Law School. He received a bachelor's degree, summa cum laude, in 1980 from Yale College and a J.D. in 1984 from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal. After clerking for Judge Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeal, 1st Circuit, Amar joined the Yale faculty in 1985. He is also is the co-editor of a leading constitutional law casebook, "Process of Constitutional Decision-Making." Amar also is the author of "The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles" (1997) and "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" (1998). For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=6656

Who are the electors, anyway?  And will the United States ever join the rest of the world, and adopt a popular vote for president?  Yale University Law & Political Science Professor Akhil Reed Amar says the Electoral College discourages voting, lessens the power of the states, and could work to the disadvantage of either major political party.  On this edition, Professor Akhil Reed Amar speaks with Angela McKenzie of Initiative Radio about how the US constitution can be changed to create a more fair and just society. Featuring: Akhil Reed Amar, Yale University Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science; Angela McKenzie, Initiative Radio Host. For More Information: What is the Electoral College? http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live by http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780465029570-0 Akhil Reed Amar discusses his book with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13812/Americas+Unwritten+Constitution+The+Precedents+and+Principles+We+Live+By.aspx National Popular Vote http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ National Popular Vote Interstate Compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact Gravel's justice of choice: Amar http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2008/feb/07/gravels-justice-of-choice-amar/     How the Electoral College Works http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm Initiative Radio https://www.facebook.com/pages/Initiative-Radio-with-Angela-McKenzie/106581202712373     The post Making Contact – The Electoral College's Dirty History appeared first on KPFA.