Podcasts about Constitutional convention

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSS | YouTubeLandry Ayres: Welcome back to Zooming In at The UnPopulist. I'm Landry Ayres.We find ourselves in a deeply troubling moment for American democracy, grappling with the stark realities of a political landscape increasingly defined by fear, performative cruelty, and a conscious assault on established norms and institutions.This special live recording from ISMA's “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference features host Aaron Ross Powell, as well as longtime observer of the militarization of police and author of the Substack, The Watch, Radley Balko, and co-founder and former contributor of The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes, author now of the Substack To the Contrary. They explore the mechanisms of this assault, how a manufactured crisis of fear is being weaponized by law enforcement, and the profound implications for civil liberties and the rule of law in America.The discussion is insightful, if unsettling.A transcript of today's podcast appears below. It has been edited for flow and clarity.Aaron Ross Powell: Welcome to a special live recording of The UnPopulist's Zooming In podcast here at the “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference in Washington, D.C. I am Aaron Powell and I'm delighted to be joined by Radley Balko and Charlie Sykes to talk about the situation we find ourselves in.To me, the most striking image of Trump's campaign, months before he was reelected, was from the RNC. Before that, there was the weird one of him in the construction vest. But the most terrifying image was the one depicting the “Mass Deportation Now!” signs and the sneering and cruel faces celebrating the culture that they were wallowing in. Those faces made me think, as I was looking at them, of the faces in photographs during the Civil Rights Movement of police officers about to inflict violence, turn on firehoses, let dogs loose, and so on. And it felt like what we are seeing now.The “Mass Deportation Now!” images characterize not just the policies of Trump 2.0, but the attitude that they're trying to inflict upon the country. It feels like a rolling back of what we achieved in the 1960s from the Civil Rights Movement—it feels like we're in a retreat from that. This is a conscious attempt to roll that back. So I wanted to talk about that.Radley, I'll start with you. We're sitting in D.C. right now as National Guard troops and members of all sorts of agencies are patrolling the streets. Is this surprising to you—the pace at which these nominally public servants, who are supposed to serve and protect, have embraced this role of violence and fear and chaos?Radley Balko: I'm surprised at how quickly it's happened. I've been talking to people about this day for the last 20 years. I've been warning about the gradual militarization of our police, which is something that has happened in conjunction with the drug war and then the war on terror over 40 or 50 years.That debate was always about, “How militarized should our police be? How do we balance safety, and giving police officers what they need to protect public safety, with civil liberties and constitutional rights?” The fear was always that another Sept. 11 type event would cause what we're seeing now—that there would be a threat, a threat that everybody acknowledges as a threat, that would cause an administration, states, mayors, to crack down on civil liberties. But it would at least be a threat that everyone recognizes as a threat. We would be debating about how to react to it.When it comes to what's playing out today, there's no threat. This is all manufactured. This is all made up.Your juxtaposition of those two images—the clownish image of Trump in the construction vest and the other one depicting this genuinely terrifying anger and glee a lot of his followers get from watching grandmothers be raided and handcuffed and dragged out of their homes—show the clownishness and incompetence of this administration juxtaposed with the actual threat and danger, the hate and vitriol, that we see from his followers.We always hear that story about Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention: a woman comes up to him and says, “So, what is it, Mr. Franklin, do we have a republic or a monarchy?” And he says, “A republic, if you can keep it.” That phrase, of course, has been echoed throughout the ages. If Franklin were alive today, he would say, “You know, when I said that, I was worried about a Caracalla or a Sulla or a Caesar.” Instead it's like, this guy, the guy that has to win every handshake, that's who you're going to roll over for?I saw a lot of libertarian-ish people making this point before the election—that Trump's not a threat, he's a clown, he's incompetent, he's not dangerous. And you know what? He may be incompetent, but he's put people around him this time who do know what they're doing and who are genuinely evil.So, on some level, this was the worst case scenario that I never really articulated over the years when I've talked about police militarization. This is actual military acting as police, not police acting as the military. But here we are and they're threatening to spread it around the country to every blue city they can find.Powell: He's a clown, he's rightfully an object of ridicule, he doesn't know anything, he's riddled with pathologies that are obvious to everyone except him. And yet it's not just that he won, but that he effectively turned, not all of the American right, but certainly a large chunk of it into a personality cult. Charlie, given that he seems to be a singularly uninspiring personality, what happened?Charlie Sykes: Well, he's inspiring to his followers.Let me break down the question into two parts.I was in Milwaukee during the Republican Convention, when they were holding up the “Mass Deportation” signs—which was rather extraordinary, if you think about it, that they would actually put that in writing and cheer it. It's something that they'd been talking about for 10 years, but you could see that they were ramping it up.But you put your finger on this culture of performative cruelty and brutality that they have embraced. Trump has made no secret of that. It's one of the aspects of his appeal. For many, many years he's been saying that his idea of law and order is to have cops who will break heads and inflict harm. He's talked about putting razor blades on the top of the wall that Mexico was going to pay for. He's told stories about atrocities. One of his standard stories—that I think the media just stopped even quoting—was about Gen. “Black Jack” Pershing in World War I taking Muslim terrorists and shooting them with bullets that had been dipped in pig's blood. Totally b******t—he made the whole thing up. But it was an indication of a kind of bloodlust. He's talked about extrajudicial killings. He has expressed his admiration for strongmen like Duterte in the Philippines who have done this. He's talked about having drug courts that would have trials and executions the same day. So this is not a secret.What is really remarkable is the extent to which he's communicated that to his base. I mean, there are Americans who legitimately have concerns about immigration and about the border. But what he's also tapped into is this really visceral hatred of the other and the desire to inflict pain and suffering on them. I think that that is one of the ugliest aspects of his presence in our politics, and we saw that with the “Mass Deportation Now!” signs.Now, the second part is how he is implementing all of this with his raw police state, his masked brute squads sent into the city streets. And, again, he's made no secret of wanting to put active military troops into the streets of American cities. He was blocked from doing that in Trump 1.0, but obviously this is something that he's thought about and wants to do. And one of the most disturbing parts about this is the embrace of these kinds of tactics and this culture by law enforcement itself. Radley's written a lot about this. Donald Trump has gone out of his way, not only to defend war criminals, but also to defend police officers who've been accused of brutality. So he's basically put up a bat signal to law enforcement that: The gloves are off. We're coming in. There's a new sheriff in town.What's happening in Washington, D.C. is just a trial run. He's going to do this in New York. He's going to do this in Chicago. He's going to do this in one blue city after another. And the question is, “Will Americans just accept armed troops in their streets as normal?”Now, let me give a cautionary note here: Let's not gaslight Americans that there's not actually a crime problem. I think Democrats are falling into a kind of trap because there are legitimate concerns about public safety. So the argument shouldn't be: There's no crime problem. The argument should be: This is exactly the wrong way to go about dealing with it. Having mass, brute squads on the street is one step toward really running roughshod over a lot of different rights—due process rights and other constitutional rights—that most Americans are going to be reluctant to give up. But we're going to find out, because all of this is being tested right now.Balko: I'd like to jump in on the crime point. I mean, crime is down in D.C. D.C. does have a comparatively high crime rate for a city of its size. There's no question. It's always been that way here. But the idea that there's something happening right now that merits this response is what I meant when I called it a manufactured crisis.I think it's important to point out that, like you said, he's always wanted to do this. This is just the reason that he's managed to put his finger on and thinks is going to resonate.“I've been talking to people about this day for the last 20 years. I've been warning about the gradual militarization of our police, which is something that has happened in conjunction with the drug war and then the war on terror over 40 or 50 years. That debate was always about, ‘How militarized should our police be? How do we balance safety, and giving police officers what they need to protect public safety, with civil liberties and constitutional rights?' The fear was always that another Sept. 11 type event would cause what we're seeing now—that there would be a threat, that everybody acknowledges as a threat, that would cause an administration, states, mayors, to crack down on civil liberties. But there would at least be a threat that everyone recognizes as a threat. We'd be debating about how to react to it. When it comes to what's playing out today, there's no threat. This is all manufactured. This is all made up.” — Radley BalkoI do think we need to talk about crime and about what works and what doesn't. But I think it's important to acknowledge that “crime” is just the reason that he's found right now. This is something that he's been planning to do forever. Like Kristi Noem said, it is basically about deposing the leadership in these cities. In Los Angeles, she said that their goal was to “liberate” it from the socialist elected leaders.Sykes: I agree with you completely about that. I'm just saying that there is a danger of putting too much emphasis on the idea that there is not a crime problem—because in Chicago, there's a crime problem, in New York, there's a crime problem. People feel it. And, I mean, didn't Democrats learn a lesson in 2024 when there was inflation and they said, “Oh no, no, no, there's not really inflation here. Let me show you a chart. You can't think that the cost of living is a problem because here are some statistics that I have for you. There's not really a problem at the border—if you think there's a problem of immigration, a problem at the border, here, I have a chart showing you that there isn't a problem.” Well, you can't.If the public honestly thinks that there is a problem at the border, that there's a problem with inflation, and that there's a problem with crime, it's politically problematic to deny it because as David Frum wrote presciently in The Atlantic several years ago: If liberals will not enforce the border—you could add in, “or keep the city streets safe”—the public will turn to the fascists. If they think you will solve this problem and you're pretending it does not exist or you're trying to minimize it, they'll turn to the fascists.Balko: I don't want to belabor this, but I just think it's dangerous to concede the point when the premise itself is wrong.So, Trump made crime an issue in 2016, right? Recall the American Carnage inauguration speech. When Trump took office in Jan. 2017, he inherited the lowest murder rate of any president in the last 50 years. And yet he ran on crime. I think that it's important to push back and say, “Wait a minute, no, Obama did not cause a massive spike in crime. There was a tiny uptick in 2015, but that was only because 2014 was basically the safest year in recent memory.”Trump is also the first president in 30 years to leave office with a higher murder rate than when he entered it. You know, I don't think that presidents have a huge effect on crime, but Trump certainly does.So, I agree with you that we can't say crime isn't a problem, but we can also point out that crime went up under Trump and that what he's doing will make things worse.Sykes: I think these are all legitimate points to make. It's just that, Trump has this reptilian instinct to go for vulnerabilities. And one of the vulnerabilities of the progressive left is the problem of governance. If there is a perception that these urban centers are badly governed, that they are overrun with homeless encampments and crime and carjacking, then the public will see what he's doing as a solution.By the way, I'm making this argument because I think that we can't overstate how dangerous and demagogic what he's doing is. But I'm saying that this is going to be a huge fight. He's going to go into Chicago where crime is just demonstrably a problem, and where I think the mayor has an approval rating of about 12 to 16%, and he's going to say, “I am here with the cavalry.”There's got to be a better answer for this. There's got to be a way to focus on the real threat to the constitutional order that he is posing, as opposed to arguing on his ground and saying, “No, no, don't pay attention to crime, inflation, the border.”And, again, I'm making this argument because this is one that I think the country really has to win. Otherwise we are going to see militarization and an actual police state.Powell: Let me see if I can pull together some of the threads from the conversation so far, because I think there's a nexus, or something that needs to be diagnosed, to see the way through.When you [Charlie] were mentioning the bullets covered in pig's blood, what occurred to me was ... I was a kid at the height of '80s action movies. And that's the kind of thing that the bad guys did in '80s action movies. That's the kind of thing that justified the muscular American blowing them up or otherwise dispatching them.There's been a turn, now, in that we're seeing behavior from Americans that they would have at one point said, “This isn't who we are.” The Christianity that many Americans hold to, this is not the way that Jesus tells them to act. There's been a shift in our willingness to embrace this sort of thing, and it's behavior that I would have expected to horrify basically everyone watching it happening.And it is—his approval readings are declining rapidly. It is horrifying a lot of people—but fewer than I would have hoped. One of you mentioned that, on the one hand, there's the cruelty, but there's also the fear—and those are feeding into each other. And what I wonder is, yes, there's crime, but at the same time, if your media consumption habits are those of a committed Trump supporter, you are being told constantly to be afraid that everybody outside your door, except for the people who you recognize, or maybe the people who share your skin color or speak with the same accent you do, is a threat to you and your family.I see this with members of my own family who are Trump supporters. They are just terrified. “I can't ride the subway. It's too scary to ride the subway.” Or, “I go out in D.C. and I see youths doing the kinds of things youths do, and now I don't feel safe having my family there.” We don't have a war. We don't have a crisis. But we've told a huge portion of the country, “You should be afraid of every last thing except your immediate family and that guy who now rules the country.” And the crime rates are part of it. It's like, “You should be scared of every single one of these cities.”Sykes: It's a story. One of the speakers today was talking about the power of stories, that demagogues will tell a story. And a story of fear and anger is a very, very powerful story that you can't counteract with statistics. You need to counteract it with other stories.“This culture of performative cruelty and brutality is one of the aspects of his appeal. For many years he's been saying that his idea of law and order is to have cops who will break heads and inflict harm. He's talked about putting razor blades on the top of the wall that Mexico was going to pay for. He's told stories about atrocities. He would tell the story about Gen. ‘Black Jack' Pershing in World War I taking Muslim terrorists and shooting them with bullets that had been dipped in pig's blood. He's talked about extrajudicial killings. He has expressed his admiration for strongmen like Duterte in the Philippines who have done this. He's talked about having drug courts that would have trials and executions the same day. What is really remarkable is the extent to which he's communicated that to his base. He's tapped into this really visceral hatred of the other and the desire to inflict pain and suffering on them. I think that that is one of the ugliest aspects, and we saw that with the ‘Mass Deportation Now!' signs.” — Charlie SykesPart of the problem is that Trump has made that narrative. So, for example, you have members of your family who are Trump supporters. My guess is that they could name the young women who had been raped and murdered by illegal immigrants. Because, I mean, on Fox News, this is happening all the time, right? On Fox News, illegal immigrants are criminals. “Look at the crimes they are committing.” They tell that story in the most graphic way possible, and then turn around and say, “If you oppose what Donald Trump is doing, you are defending these ‘animals'”—as Trump described them.It is deeply dishonest. It is deeply dangerous. But it is potent. And we ought to look at it in the face and recognize how he is going to weaponize those stories and that fear, which is really the story of our era now. We're living in this era of peace, prosperity, general safety—and yet he's created this “American carnage” hellscape story.Balko: Yeah, I also think there's this weird paradox of masculinity in the MAGA movement. It's not about masculinity—it's about projecting masculinity. It's about co-opting aspects of masculinity. And it's like, “We're the manly men. We need men to be men again. And that's why we support men who sexually assault and sexually harass women. And, at the same time, we're all going to genuflect and debase ourselves in front of this 79-year-old man, because he's our leader and we need to let him insult our wives. And we're also scared to take the subway.” I think there were 10 murders last year in the New York city subway. The subway is one of the safest public spaces you'll find anywhere. But you'll regularly see MAGA people go on Fox News and talk about how scared they are of it.I mean, I don't know how persuadable any of MAGA is, but I do think pointing out the sheer cowardliness might resonate. When Markwayne Mullin goes on the Sunday shows and says he doesn't wear a seatbelt anymore because he's afraid he'll get carjacked and he needs to be able to jump out of his car quickly ...Sykes: ... He actually did say that.Balko: Yeah. And, I don't know what the stats are, but it's something like you're 40 or 50 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a carjacking. So, you know, he's sealing his own fate, I guess.But I do think that maybe there's something to appealing to their lack of masculinity when they try to push some of these narratives.Sykes: Well, yeah, I do think there are narratives out there.We have National Guard troops here in Washington, D.C.—where were they on Jan. 6th? Why did the president not bring them in then? We had one of the greatest assaults on law enforcement. So we can call b******t on Donald Trump being the “law and order,” “back the blue” president.One of the first things he did when he took office was issue the blanket pardons to all the rioters and seditionists who not only assaulted the Capitol, but specifically the ones who attacked police officers. We can stand up and say, “I don't want to be lectured by the man who gave the Get Out of Jail Free card to the people who tased and bear sprayed police officers in this city. Not to mention,”—before he brings up the whole “defund the police” thing—“the man who right now is dismantling the nation's premier law enforcement agency, the FBI.” Because all of these FBI agents who are being gutted or tasked with hassling homeless people in Washington, D.C., you know what they're not doing? They are not investigating child sex trafficking. They are not engaging in any anti-terrorism activities.So, what you do is call them out, saying, “You are not making this country safer. You are not the ‘law and order' president. You are a convicted felon. You in fact have freed and celebrated people who actually beat cops.” If Barack Obama would have pardoned someone who had attacked police officers, the right would have been utterly incandescent. And yet Donald Trump does it and he's not called out on it.I understand that there are some who are reluctant to say, “Well, no, we're actually the party of law and order. We're actually the party of public safety.” But you hit him right in what I think is a real vulnerability.Balko: One of the guys who literally told Jan. 6 rioters to kill the police is now a respected senior member of the Justice Department, whereas the guy who threw a sandwich at a cop is facing a felony charge. That is Trump's approach to law enforcement.Sykes: I always hate it when people go on TV and say, “This should be a talking point.” But that ought to be a talking point. Don't you think everybody ought to know his name? We have the video of Jared Wise saying, “Kill ‘em! Kill ‘em!” and calling the police Nazis. And he is now a top official in Donald Trump's Justice Department.Powell: This is my concern, though—and this allows me to belabor my Civil Rights Movement point some more. One of the reasons that the anti-civil rights movement, the counter-movement, was as vicious and as ugly as it was is because it was a group of people who felt like they had a status level by virtue of being white, of being men. As they saw things, “If we help minorities and others rise up, that lowers the baseline status that I have.” So they wanted to fight back. It was, “I'm going to keep these people down because it keeps me up.” And when Radley said that they're “projecting masculinity,” I think that's a big part.A big part of the appeal is, “Now I'm seeing guys like me dominating. Now I'm seeing guys who are from my area or share my cultural values or dress like me or are into the same slogans or have the same fantasies of power as I do, or just aren't the coastal elites with their fancy educations and so on, dominating.” And my worry is if that's what's driving a lot of it—that urge to domination coupled with the fear, which I think then allows them to overcome any barriers they have to cruelty—if you marry, “I can have power” and “I'm scared of these people,” that to them justifies their actions in the same way that it does the action movie heroes killing the guys who put the pig's blood on bullets. It becomes justified to inflict cruelty upon those they hate.My worry is if you go after them in that way, it feels like, “Okay, now what you're saying is these guys who look like me, who were dominating, don't actually deserve it.” I don't think that means that we stay away from it, but I think it risks triggering even more of this, “What I want is for it to be my boot on people's necks and I want them to stop putting me down. And I want them to stop telling me that I'm not good, that I'm incompetent, that it's not okay for me to beat my wife” (or whatever it happens to be). Trump is like an avatar for very mediocre men.Sykes: Well, I wouldn't use that as a talking point.Balko: A few years ago, I wrote a piece about a Black police chief who was hired in Little Rock by a mayor who ran on a reform platform and this police chief had a good record. He was in Norman, Okla. before that—he was the first Black chief in Oklahoma. And he was not a progressive by any means, but he was a reformer in that he wanted things to be merit-based and Little Rock has a really strong white police union. I say that because they also have a Black police union, because the Black officers didn't feel like they were represented by the white union.One of the first things that Chief Humphrey did was make the promotional interviews, that you get to move up through the ranks, blind. So you didn't know who you're talking to. If you were white, you didn't know if it was a fellow white person you were interviewing. Most of the people in charge were. The result of removing race from that process was that more Black officers were getting promoted than before. And I wrote about him because he ended up getting chased out of town. They hit him with fake sexual harassment charges; the union claimed he was harassing white women. Basically, they exerted their power and managed to chase him out.But one of the things he told me when I interviewed him was—and other people have said different versions of this—that when your entire life you've been the beneficiary of racial preferences as a white person, as happened in this country for most of its existence, meritocracy looks a lot like racial discrimination. Because things that you got just simply because you were entitled to now you have to earn. And that looks like, “Hey, this Black guy is getting this job over me. And that's not right. Because my dad got that job over the Black guy and his dad got the job over the Black guy.”And I think this backlash that we're seeing against DEI—I'm sure there are parts of this country where DEI was promoting unqualified people just to have diversity, and I do think there's there's value in diversity for diversity's sake—is white people, who have been benefiting from our racial hierarchy system that's been in place since the Founding, were starting to see themselves passed over because we were now moving to a merit-based system and they saw that as discrimination. That's a big part of the backlash.I don't know what the solution is. I don't know that we just re-impose all of the former policies once Trump's out of power, if he's ever out of power. But I do think that there is value in diversity for diversity's sake. Obviously I don't support strict quota systems, but I do think it's important to make that point that addressing historical injustices is critical.We went to the art museum in Nashville the other day and they had a whole exhibit about Interstate I-40 going through Nashville. It was supposed to go through this industrial area where there were no neighborhoods or private homes. And the Tennessee legislature deliberately made it run through the wealthiest Black neighborhood in Nashville and destroyed about 80% of Black wealth in the city. That was 1968—that was not 1868. That's relatively recently that you're destroying a ton of wealth. And you can find that history in every single city.I think a big part of this backlash is not knowing that history—and only knowing what's happening now and experiencing it out of context. For those people, it feels like reverse discrimination.Sykes: So, yes, a lot of this is true. But it's not the whole story. In the state of Wisconsin, overwhelmingly white voters voted for Barack Obama, a Black man, twice in a row before voting for Donald Trump. So we do have that long, deep history of racism, but then also an America that I think was making some progress. I'm just going to put this out as a counterpoint: I think that if people were appealing to the “better angels of their nature,” a lot of these people would not be buying into the cruelty, the brutality, the racism. Instead, we're appealing to their sense of victimization.But let's be honest about it. We moved from a Civil Rights Movement that was morally based on fairness and the immorality of discrimination to one that increasingly was identity politics that morphed into DEI, which was profoundly illiberal. What happened was a lot of the guys we're talking about were thinking not just that they want their boots on people's head, but they're constantly being told that they were bad, that their contributions were not significant. There were invisible tripwires of grievance—what you could say, what you could do, the way you had to behave. In the before times, a lot of the attacks on free speech and the demands for ideological conformity on university campuses were not coming from the illiberal right—they were coming from the illiberal left.And as I'm listening to the speakers at this conference talk about the assault on liberalism, I think one of the questions we have to ask—and maybe this is a little meta—is why it was so brittle. Well, it was brittle because it was caught in a pincer movement by the illiberal left and the illiberal right. My point is that a lot of this reaction is in fact based on racial animus, but there's also a sense that I hear from a lot of folks, a sense of liberation that they feel, that the boot was on their necks and is now being taken off, that they're not having to go to these highly ideological DEI training sessions where they were told how terrible and awful they were all the time. And how, if you believed in a race-blind society, that was a sign you were racist. If white women actually were moved by stories of racism and wept, that was white women's tears. This was heavy handed.“I do think the people who signed off on extraordinary rendition and snatching people off the street and sending them to a literal torture prison in El Salvador, those people need to be criminally charged. But I also think there need to be civil society repercussions. There are so many people in media—pundits, politicians who know better—who have a long record of pointing out how dangerous Trump was and then turned on a dime and started supporting him. I don't wish any physical harm on those people. I don't think any of those people should be put in prison. But I think those people should never be trusted as public intellectuals.” — Radley BalkoSo there was a backlash that was going to be inevitable. What's tragic is the way that it has been co-opted by the people who have really malign motives, who are not acting out of good will—the Stephen Millers who have figured out a way to weaponize this. But that line that goes from the racism of 1957 to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, to a broad-based civil rights consensus—and, again, there's caveats in all of this—to identity-based politics. Let's be honest about it. That was not without sin. That was not without problems.Balko: So, I agree that there was I guess what you could call an illiberal approach to a mutual exchange of ideas on college campuses. There was a lot of shouting down of conservative speakers. In some cases, there were invitations revoked to valedictory speeches. There was some cutting off of funding for conservative speakers. But I want to make sure we're not delving into false equivalences here. I mean, the boot that you're talking about, Charlie, was a metaphorical boot, and we're talking about a very literal boot now.Sykes: Absolutely. That distinction is a significant one.Balko: So, my preferred way of expressing my disagreement with someone isn't to shout them down. I will say, though, that protest is a form of speech. I think, even to some extent, interrupting speeches that are particularly problematic or extremist is a form of speech. It's not one that I personally would engage in. But the type of censorship we're seeing now is direct. It is government censorship. It is not a violation of the spirit of free expression that we were seeing on college campuses before.Sykes: Oh, it was more than just that kind of violation. You had universities that required people to sign a DEI statement where they had to make ideological commitments in order to get a job. I mean, this was very heavy handed. There were no literal boots, but ... I like Jonathan Rauch's analogy that the illiberalism of the left is still a real problem, but it's like a slow-growing cancer. Right now, what we're facing with the illiberalism of the right is a heart attack. We have to deal with the heart attack right now, but let's not pretend that everyone who objects to some of the things that were happening are doing so because they are just vile, white racists.This is part of the problem. People spent decades accusing others of being racist on flimsy grounds. If you support Mitt Romney, you're a racist. If you support tax cuts, you're a racist. You know what happened? I come from this world and there was a time when to be called a racist was the worst thing you could possibly say about somebody. And it got to the point where, literally, if you were in favor of school choice, you were racist; in favor of tax cuts, you were racist. If you voted for a Republican … John McCain was a racist, George Bush was a racist. So when the real thing came along, guess what people said? They just rolled their eyes, shrugged, and said, “We've heard this before.” I mean, it was crying wolf for decades.And I've had these conversations when I would say, “How can you support someone who is just espousing this raw, vicious racism about Haitians eating dogs?” You know what I would get? “Oh, we've been hearing this for 20 years. Literally everyone I know has been accused of being a racist.”So we need to come back to a consensus. If we're going to restore that liberal consensus, we're going to have to say, “This is acceptable behavior. And this is not acceptable behavior.” But we are not going to use these labels to vilify. The politics of contempt is just not helpful. It is not helpful to tell people, “By the way, I think you're an idiot. I think you're stupid. I think you're racist. Would you like to hear my ideas about taxes now?” It doesn't work. And I think that one of the things that, tragically, Trump has tapped into is the sense that these elites look down on you.So, Aaron, when you say that this is the revolution of mediocre men, not helpful. Now, some of them are mediocre. I certainly agree. I write about mediocre people all the time—but, again, the politics of contempt is not the way to get ourselves out of this.Powell: I think there's a distinction between messaging and diagnosis. And if we're to understand how we got here, or the kinds of beliefs or values that can lead someone ... and I don't mean, you've been a partisan Republican voter for your entire life, and you come from a family of this, and you pulled the lever for Trump, but you're mostly an uninformed voter, which is a lot of people—I mean, the people who are cheering on Stephen Miller, they're in a different category. So it might be that, if you have one of those people in front of you, the message is not to say, “There's a broken set of morals at play here,” or “there's a cramped view of humanity at play here,” because they're not going to hear that in the moment.But if we're to understand how we got here and what we're up against, I think we have to be fairly clear-eyed about the fact that the [Trumpian] values that we've discovered over the last 10, 15 years have much more appeal and purchase among a lot of Americans than I think any of us had really expected or certainly hoped, and then figure out how to address that. And, again, it's not everybody—but it's more than I would like. If those values are central to someone's being, and the way that they view others around them and the way they relate to their fellow man, then I think a lot of the less condemning arguments also won't find purchase because, ultimately, it's not a policy difference. It's a, “I want a crueler world.”Sykes: This is where I think the argument that says, “Let's look at this cruelty. Let's look at this brutality. Let's look at the Stephen Millers” ... believe it or not, I actually think it's potent to say to somebody, “Do you want to be like that? Is that really what you want America to be? You're better than that.” And then, “Let me tell you the story of decency.”The story that we heard earlier today about how neighbors who are Trump voters will be there if your house is burning down or your father dies ... you appeal to that innate decency and say, “Do you really want this cruelty?” This is what's lacking, I think, on the right and in the Republican Party right now: people who say, “Okay, you may want less taxes, smaller government, a crackdown on street crime, less illegal immigration ... but is this who you want to be?” Show them the masked officer who is dragging the grandmother away. I do think that there is the better angel that says, “No, that is really not the American story.” You have to appeal to them as opposed to just condemn them. I'm not sure we're disagreeing, but I actually think that that's potent.Balko: I think there is not only room for ridicule when you're up against an aspiring authoritarian, but a lot of history shows it's often one of the few things that works because they really hate to be disrespected.I agree with Charlie that I don't think it's necessarily productive to make fun of people who have been tricked or who have been lied to, but I also think it's worth pointing out that Trump has contempt for his own supporters. I mean, one of the great ironies of our time is that when Trump would need a boost of self-esteem, he would go hold a rally in a state that, before he ran for president, he would never have been caught dead in. He grifts from his own supporters. His lies about Covid got his own supporters killed at higher rates than people in states that didn't vote for him. But I agree that it doesn't serve much benefit to denigrate people.Sykes: But do ridicule the people who are doing it. I mean, don't get me wrong. South Park is doing God's work right now.Balko: Absolutely.Powell: What, then, is the way forward?“This is part of the problem. People spent decades accusing others of being racist on flimsy grounds. If you support Mitt Romney, you're a racist. If you support tax cuts, you're a racist. You know what happened? I come from this world and there was a time when to be called a racist was the worst thing you could possibly say about somebody. And it got to the point where, literally, if you were in favor of school choice, you were racist; in favor of tax cuts, you were racist. If you you voted for Republican. John McCain was a racist. George Bush was a racist. So when the real thing came along, guess what people said? They just rolled their eyes, shrugged, and said, ‘We've heard this before.' I mean, it was crying wolf for decades.” — Charlie SykesLet's assume that democracy survives this current moment and that we somehow put Trump behind us. We can't go back to the status quo before this. We can't just say, “We're going to go back to the kind of politics we had during the Biden administration.” That seems to be off the table. We need something new. We need a new direction. What does that look like?Sykes: I honestly do not know at this point. And I don't think anybody knows. But I do think that we ought to remember, because we throw around the term “liberal democracy” a lot, that democracies are not necessarily liberal. Democracies are not necessarily kind. And I think we need to go back to things like the rule of law.I think it's going to involve some kind of restoration of balance in society. The damage that's being done now is so deep and some of it is so irreparable that I'm hoping that there will be a backlash against it, that there will be a pendulum swing back towards fundamental decency. And even though we keep talking about democracy a lot, I think we need to start talking about freedom and decency a little bit more.You know, I was listening to the Russian dissident who spoke tonight and he asked us to imagine what it's like trying to create a democratic society in Russia with all of their history and all their institutions. As bad as things are for us, we have a big head start. We still have an infrastructure, compared to what he is up against. We still can restore, I think, that fundamental decency and sense of freedom and equality before the law.Balko: I also don't know exactly what it's going to look like. I will say this: I think one of the big reasons why we are where we are today is that there wasn't a proper reckoning, and no real accountability, after the Civil War and Reconstruction. It's been the same with Jan. 6. There was no real accountability. The Democrats waited too long for impeachment. The DOJ was slow.I do think there have to be repercussions. I'm not saying that we throw everybody in the Trump administration in prison, but I do think the people who signed off on extraordinary rendition and snatching people off the street and sending them to a literal torture prison in El Salvador, those people need to be criminally charged.But I also think there need to be civil society repercussions. There are so many people in media—pundits, politicians who know better—who have a long record of pointing out how dangerous Trump was and then turned on a dime and started supporting him. I don't wish any physical harm on those people. I don't think any of those people should be put in prison. But I think those people should never be trusted as public intellectuals. We shouldn't employ them in that realm. I think they should be able to earn a living. I don't think they should earn our trust.I have zero confidence that that's going to happen. But I can personally say that I have no interest in participating in events like this with those people. I have no interest in giving those people any kind of legitimacy because they tried to take our birthright away from us, which is a free and democratic society—the country that, for all its flaws, has been an exemplary country in the history of humankind. They literally are trying to end that. And I don't think you just get to walk away from that and pretend like it never happened.Sykes: I totally agree.Powell: With that, thank you, Radley. Thank you, Charlie.© The UnPopulist, 2025Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Convention–Article IIIOn August 27, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia turned their attention to the judiciary. Debates centered on what would become Article III, particularly the scope of judicial power. The Convention approved language stating that federal judicial power would extend to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” a formulation that blended common law tradition with equitable relief. This phrase would become foundational, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Also debated was the method by which judges could be removed from office. A motion was introduced proposing that judges could be removed by the Executive if both Houses of Congress requested it. This raised immediate concerns about judicial independence. Critics argued that giving such removal power to the Executive would dangerously entangle the judiciary with the political branches. The proposal ultimately failed, with only the Connecticut delegation supporting it. The delegates chose instead to preserve the more rigorous process of impeachment as the mechanism for judicial removal. This decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence, anchoring it in the separation of powers. These discussions on August 27 set enduring boundaries around federal judicial authority and helped define the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has retained high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell to challenge President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from the central bank. Trump cited alleged mortgage fraud as grounds for her dismissal, claiming she misrepresented two homes as primary residences in 2021. Cook, appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, has denied any wrongdoing and faces no charges. Lowell, who recently launched a law firm to defend public officials targeted by Trump, announced plans to sue, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority to remove a sitting Fed governor. He characterized the removal attempt as politically motivated and baseless. Lowell's current and former clients include Hunter Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and several other prominent figures, both Democratic and Republican. His firm also represents ex-government lawyers who claim they were unlawfully dismissed by the Justice Department. Cook is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board and her removal would mark an unprecedented breach of the central bank's political independence.Fed's Lisa Cook turns to top Washington lawyer Lowell in Trump fight | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal injunction that is currently requiring it to continue foreign aid payments, despite an executive order halting such funding. In an emergency filing, the Department of Justice argued that the injunction, originally issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, interferes with the executive branch's authority over foreign policy and budgetary decisions. Trump issued the 90-day pause on foreign aid on January 20, his second inauguration day, and later took steps to dismantle USAID, including sidelining staff and considering its absorption into the State Department.Two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — challenged the funding freeze, claiming it was illegal. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the full court declined to stay the order, and Judge Ali rejected another request to do so earlier this week. The administration warned that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, it will have to spend roughly $12 billion before September 30, when the funds expire, thereby undermining its policy goals.Previously, the Supreme Court narrowly declined to pause Ali's order requiring the release of $2 billion in aid. The D.C. Circuit panel later found that only the Government Accountability Office, not private organizations, had standing to challenge the funding freeze.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to halt foreign aid payments | ReutersAnthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors who sued the AI company for training its models on over 7 million pirated books downloaded from “shadow libraries” like LibGen. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused Anthropic of copyright infringement and gained momentum after U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status in July 2025—a ruling that Anthropic said put the company under “inordinate pressure” to settle. The potential damages, estimated at up to $900 billion if the infringement was found willful, created what the company described as an existential threat.In court, Anthropic admitted the magnitude of the case made it financially unsustainable to proceed to trial, even if the legal merits were disputed. Alsup repeatedly denied the company's motions to delay or avoid trial, criticizing Anthropic for not disclosing what works it used. While he ruled that training AI on copyrighted works could qualify as fair use, the piracy claims were left for a jury to decide. Anthropic appealed the class certification and sought emergency relief, but ultimately chose to settle.Critics say the settlement underscores how current copyright law's statutory damages—up to $150,000 per willful infringement—can distort outcomes and discourage innovation. The deal is expected to be finalized by September 3. Meanwhile, Anthropic still faces other copyright lawsuits involving song lyrics and Reddit content. Legal experts suggest the company's move was partly motivated by uncertainty over how courts interpret “willful” infringement, especially with a related Supreme Court case on the horizon.Anthropic Settles Major AI Copyright Suit Brought by Authors (3)Content warning: This segment contains references to suicide, self-harm, and the death of a minor. Discretion is advised.The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state court, alleging that ChatGPT played a direct role in their son's suicide. They claim that over several months, the AI chatbot engaged in extended conversations with Adam, during which it validated his suicidal thoughts, provided instructions on lethal self-harm methods, and even helped draft a suicide note. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over user safety, especially with the release of GPT-4o in 2024, which introduced features like memory, emotional mimicry, and persistent interaction that allegedly increased risks to vulnerable users.The Raines argue that OpenAI knew these features could endanger users without strong safeguards, yet proceeded with the product rollout to boost its valuation. They seek monetary damages and a court order mandating stronger user protections, including age verification, blocking of self-harm queries, and psychological risk warnings.OpenAI expressed condolences and noted that safety mechanisms such as directing users to crisis resources are built into ChatGPT, though they acknowledged these measures can falter during prolonged conversations. The company said it is working to improve safeguards, including developing parental controls and exploring in-chat access to licensed professionals.OpenAI, Altman sued over ChatGPT's role in California teen's suicide | ReutersOpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Slavery's Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution (LSU Press, 2024) unearths a long-hidden factor that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While historians have generally acknowledged that patriot leaders assembled in response to postwar economic chaos, the threat of popular insurgencies, and the inability of the states to agree on how to fund the national government, Timothy Messer-Kruse suggests that scholars have discounted Americans' desire to compel Britain to return fugitives from slavery as a driving force behind the convention. During the Revolutionary War, British governors offered freedom to enslaved Americans who joined the king's army. Thousands responded by fleeing to English camps. After the British defeat at Yorktown, American diplomats demanded the surrender of fugitive slaves. When British generals refused, several states confiscated Loyalist estates and blocked payment of English creditors, hoping to apply enough pressure on the Crown to hand over the runaways. State laws conflicting with the 1783 Treaty of Paris violated the Articles of Confederation--the young nation's first constitution--but Congress, lacking an executive branch or a federal judiciary, had no means to obligate states to comply. The standoff over the escaped slaves quickly escalated following the Revolution as Britain failed to abandon the western forts it occupied and took steps to curtail American commerce. More than any other single matter, the impasse over the return of enslaved Americans threatened to hamper the nation's ability to expand westward, develop its commercial economy, and establish itself as a power among the courts of Europe. Messer-Kruse argues that the issue encouraged the founders to consider the prospect of scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a superseding document that would dramatically increase federal authority--the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

Go behind the scenes and explore aftermath behind what Shays's Rebellion exposed the young United States to. Discover whether John Hancock was present in Philadelphia come year 1787 to attend Constitutional Convention. Learn which delegates from Massachusetts attended the convention in Philadelphia. Find out what post John Hancock got bestowed with come January 1788 involving U.S. Constitution. Get introduced to Delegate Rufus King of Massachusetts and learn what he accomplished during 1787 Constitutional Convention. Understand deep divisions between Federalists and Anti Federalists in Massachusetts regarding their outlooks on U.S. Constitution. Discover what monumental achievement occurred in Massachusetts come February 6, 1788. Learn exactly why number nine is so important regarding the U.S. Constitution along with getting a basic timeline of events which took place between December 7, 1787 to June 21, 1788. Discover if John Hancock was a strong advocate behind favoring fundamental liberties. Determine whether Hancock himself had other political aspirations. Go behind the scenes and learn how 1789 Presidential Election was conducted. Get an in depth analysis behind how John Hancock's strife over a national government had already taken place prior to his home state ratifying U.S. Constitution. Learn what practice method John Hancock engaged in regularly to better connect with people from different corners of life including a situation from 1792 where he did something very radical. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of America's Founding Series, Professor Nick Giordano uncovers the real story of Elbridge Gerry. Gerry was a Revolutionary patriot, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Vice President of the United States, and his name has become forever tied to the controversial practice of gerrymandering. From his pivotal role in the fight for independence and his stand for a Bill of Rights, to the political pressures that led him to sign a bill he privately opposed, Gerry's life reveals the brilliance, courage, and human flaws of America's Founding Fathers. Discover the man behind the myth, and why his legacy is far more than a political cartoon. Episode Highlights How Elbridge Gerry rose from a wealthy merchant's son in Massachusetts to a key figure in the American Revolution and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Why Gerry refused to sign the Constitution, and how his principled stance helped pave the way for the Bill of Rights. The origin of “gerrymandering,” and how political loyalty led even an extraordinary Founder to a moment of human weakness.  

Host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey welcomes back Dr. Lauren Bell to explore how the Constitutional Convention's historic compromises shaped Congress into America's most powerful branch of government. From Madison's Virginia Plan to the Great Compromise that created our bicameral legislature, Bell reveals how enumerated and implied powers actually work in practice. Discover why congressional representation has become increasingly unequal over time, how air conditioning changed Congress forever, and why members strategically deflect responsibility to other branches as "single-minded seekers of reelection." Bell offers eye-opening insights into modern challenges and practical solutions for restoring public trust through better constituency connections, genuine oversight, and civic engagement. 

Stories from history you never learned ranging from Constitutional Convention humor,  the first shot that started the Civil War, the headline of Albert Gore Jr. coming into the world, the extra typewriter key needed for Nelson Rockefeller, and Richard Nixon and Pussy Galore.  Podcaster Gregory Humphrey paces a fast and fascinating podcast episode that will leave you asking how much more about our past is yet to be learned. 

What would it take to update the Constitution and should we try? Sharon is joined by former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold to explore this question from his book, The Constitution in Jeopardy. Together, they unpack the tools the framers gave to evolve the founding document, including the never before used, and deeply controversial, Constitutional Convention. Could such a convention be a path to necessary reform, or a backdoor to dismantling democracy itself? Credits: Host and Executive Producer: Sharon McMahon Supervising Producer: Melanie Buck Parks Audio Producer: Craig Thompson To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Part 1 - Constitutional Convention member Devin Carrington and Neville James analyze as the plaintiffs in a case originally filed in 2013 are asking the court to compel the government to comply with an order directing the Education Department to follow a 40-year-old law mandating that they develop and teach a curriculum in local history.

Chuck Todd begins with new polling that shows that the more Donald Trump enacts his promised agenda, the less the public likes it. He also highlights that Trump is underwater with the public on immigration, which was his strongest issue. Chuck also discusses the many distraction tactics Trump has unsuccessfully deployed to distract from the Epstein files, and previews the brewing battle over gerrymandering.Then, Harvard professor and former presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig joins Chuck Todd to tackle one of America's most persistent political problems: campaign finance reform. Despite overwhelming public support for getting money out of politics, meaningful reform has remained elusive for decades. Lessig discusses his innovative legal strategy to challenge Super PACs at the Supreme Court, arguing that if direct campaign contributions can be limited, then unlimited Super PAC spending should face the same restrictions. He explains how an originalist interpretation of the First Amendment could win over conservative justices like Barrett and Gorsuch, potentially ending the era of unlimited political spending that has dominated elections since Citizens United.The conversation expands beyond campaign finance to explore broader constitutional reforms, including the possibility of a constitutional convention that could address everything from electoral college reform to fractional voting systems. Lessig argues that both Trump supporters and traditional Democrats share a desire to reduce the influence of money in politics, creating unprecedented bipartisan momentum for change. He envisions citizens assemblies that could help reconnect politics with ordinary Americans' concerns, while discussing practical reforms like multi-member districts and proportional electoral vote allocation that states could implement immediately. The episode offers both hope and concrete pathways for restoring democratic governance "by the people" rather than by wealthy donors and special interests.Finally, Chuck gives his thoughts on The Open Championship, the lack of leadership for the Washington Nationals and answers listeners' questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment.Timeline:(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)00:00 Introduction02:45 The more Trump succeeds on his terms, the less popular he becomes04:15 Trump's aggressive immigration approach is receiving backlash08:00 The public is starting to feel the pain from Trump's economic agenda10:00 A strong majority believe Trump isn't prioritizing deporting criminals12:00 Immigration was Trump's best issue, now he's underwater in polling14:00 Deportations will have a massive negative effect on the economy15:30 All of Trump's policies will contribute to inflation17:15 The public wants the Fed to remain independent.19:15 Trump's approval rating has continually dropped21:00 America could end up with a string of one term presidents22:00 89% of Americans want the Epstein files released23:00 Tulsi Gabbard's Obama/Russia conspiracy is a distraction from Epstein26:00 Russian election interference has been proven28:00 Trump's latest distraction is demanding sports teams change names29:45 Trump demanded release of grand jury testimony to buy time32:15 Michael Wolff says Epstein believed Trump turned him in 33:45 Huge battle brewing over gerrymandering/redistricting35:15 Democrats willing to cede the moral high ground and aggressively gerrymander37:00 Trump has normalized anti-democratic behavior39:00 A constitutional convention could address many modern issues40:15 Professor Lawrence Lessig joins The Chuck ToddCast! 42:15 Why can't we get traction on campaign finance reform? 43:45 Most Americans want reform but don't think it's possible 45:45 Is Trump's "pay to play" system making reform more likely? 47:30 Effort to challenge Super PACs at the Supreme Court 49:30 If outside money isn't quid pro quo, then why aren't campaign contributions? 50:45 If you can limit campaign contributions, why not Super PACs? 52:45 When can you get your case in front of the Supreme Court? 54:15 The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about contributions 56:15 Does Congress need to pass a new law if you win the case? 57:15 Winning the case would effectively end Super PACs 1:00:30 The two justices to win over are Barrett and Gorsuch 1:02:30 Winning the argument by following originalism 1:04:30 There are clear examples of quid pro quo for donations 1:05:30 Will they try to change contribution limits if you win? 1:06:15 Trump supporters also want money out of politics 1:08:30 Electors not being able to vote their conscience is unconstitutional 1:11:00 Conservatives have been pining for a constitutional convention 1:12:00 What issues would be on the table at a convention? 1:13:45 There's bipartisan energy to reform campaign finance 1:15:15 Issues addressed at a convention would need support of 34 states 1:17:15 What would surprise the founders the most about modern politics? 1:20:15 The voters need to be trusted, or it's not a government "By the People" 1:22:15 We should have citizens assemblies in the states to review amendments 1:24:00 Politics has become detached from citizens' concerns 1:25:45 Fractional voting would be healthy for our democracy 1:28:00 State legislatures can decide how to deliver electoral votes 1:29:00 Unintended consequences of fractional voting 1:30:45 Viability of multi-member districts? 1:33:30 Unequal representation between big and small states in the Senate 1:34:45 Political environment is ripe for a convention 1:38:15 Many donors would love to do away with Super PACs1:40:00 Chuck's thoughts on interview with Larry Lessig 1:41:15 The great weather at the Open Championship made it boring 1:42:15 The moment is never too big for Scottie Scheffler 1:43:00 The Washington Nationals have no leadership 1:46:00 Ask Chuck 1:46:15 Should we hold a constitutional convention? 1:48:00 Could Ohio's gubernatorial and senate races be competitive? 1:51:45 A Democrat wins a statewide race in Texas when ____ happens?

Clay's conversation with popular guest Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky on Patrick Henry. Henry began his life as a shopkeeper but rose to become the governor of Virginia and one of the handful of most essential rabble-rousers in the American Revolution. Henry and Jefferson were frenemies; at one point, Jefferson (the Deist) said to his friend Madison, “We must pray for Henry's death.” This quip was likely a joke, but Jefferson was quite critical of Henry, and he never forgave him for initiating a legislative investigation into Jefferson's conduct as the beleaguered wartime governor of Virginia. Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787 because, he said, “he smelt a rat.” He opposed ratification in Virginia, but when Jefferson and Madison were considering secession in 1798 and 1799, Henry declared to George Washington that the constitutional settlement must not be disturbed by the Jeffersonians. This episode was recorded live on May 16, 2025. *Note, we posted this description in error for the podcast episode published on June 9, 2025.  

Happy Fourth of July! I'm attending a wedding today, so this episode is from the vault, in a way, although it's its first time on Statecraft. I originally published this essay in January of 2022 on Mirror, shortly after my wife had joined the core team of a DAO that was attempting to acquire a first-edition copy of the US Constitution. I had been reading a history of the constitutional convention, and it seemed fitting to write about it on a thematic site. Yes, July 4th is about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Cut me some slack, please!You can find the transcript for this episode and many others at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text Message|The drumbeat of liberty that began at Lexington and Concord in 1775 would echo for eight long years before America secured its independence. Yet winning the war proved only the first challenge—creating a functioning nation would require even more patience, wisdom, and compromise.Most Americans don't realize that nearly four years passed between the Treaty of Paris (1783) and the Constitutional Convention (1787). During this critical period, our young nation struggled under the weak Articles of Confederation, facing economic instability, regional tensions, and even armed rebellion. Different regions—New England with its shipping interests, the agricultural Middle States, and the plantation South—viewed each other with suspicion and competed for economic advantage.When delegates finally gathered in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, they faced the monumental task of strengthening the federal government without trampling the liberty they had just fought to secure. For three months and twenty-four days, they debated, compromised, and sometimes argued fiercely behind closed doors and sealed windows. The Great Compromise balanced the interests of large and small states, while the Three-Fifths Compromise attempted to address the contradiction of slavery in a nation founded on liberty—a solution that would contribute to sectional tensions for the next 75 years.Key Points from the Episode:• The American Revolutionary War began April 19, 1775, with the Battles of Lexington and Concord• The Declaration of Independence was adopted July 4, 1776, a full year after fighting began• Final major battle at Yorktown occurred in October 1781, but peace treaty wasn't signed until 1783• Articles of Confederation (America's first constitution) proved extremely weak and ineffective• Regional differences created intense conflicts between states over economic and political priorities• Shays' Rebellion in 1786-1787 demonstrated the need for stronger central government• Constitutional Convention lasted three months and twenty-four days during summer 1787• The Great Compromise balanced representation between large and small states• Most founders mistakenly believed slavery would naturally dissolve within a generation• Despite the summer setting, Philadelphia's weather in 1787 was relatively mild• Four years passed between the end of the Revolutionary War and the signing of the ConstitutionJoin us this whole next year as we celebrate America's 250th birthday and reflect on the exceptional nature of our national character that emerged through these challenging founding years.Keep fighting the good fight.Other resources: Lovers of Liberty--Book 5Lovers of Liberty--Book 4Lovers of Liberty--Book 3Lovers of Liberty--Book 2Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!|

fWotD Episode 2982: George Washington Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Friday, 4 July 2025, is George Washington.George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O. S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799) was a Founding Father and the first president of the United States, serving from 1789 to 1797. As commander of the Continental Army, Washington led Patriot forces to victory in the American Revolutionary War against the British Empire. He is commonly known as the Father of the Nation for his role in bringing about American independence.Born in the Colony of Virginia, Washington became the commander of the Virginia Regiment during the French and Indian War (1754–1763). He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, and opposed the perceived oppression of the American colonists by the British Crown. When the American Revolutionary War against the British began in 1775, Washington was appointed commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. He directed a poorly organized and equipped force against disciplined British troops. Washington and his army achieved an early victory at the Siege of Boston in March 1776 but were forced to retreat from New York City in November. Washington crossed the Delaware River and won the battles of Trenton in late 1776 and Princeton in early 1777, then lost the battles of Brandywine and Germantown later that year. He faced criticism of his command, low troop morale, and a lack of provisions for his forces as the war continued. Ultimately Washington led a combined French and American force to a decisive victory over the British at Yorktown in 1781. In the resulting Treaty of Paris in 1783, the British acknowledged the sovereign independence of the United States. Washington then served as president of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which drafted the current Constitution of the United States.Washington was unanimously elected the first U. S. president by the Electoral College in 1788 and 1792. He implemented a strong, well-financed national government while remaining impartial in the fierce rivalry that emerged within his cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. During the French Revolution, he proclaimed a policy of neutrality while supporting the Jay Treaty with Britain. Washington set enduring precedents for the office of president, including republicanism, a peaceful transfer of power, the use of the title "Mr. President", and the two-term tradition. His 1796 farewell address became a preeminent statement on republicanism: Washington wrote about the importance of national unity and the dangers that regionalism, partisanship, and foreign influence pose to it. As a planter of tobacco and wheat at Mount Vernon, Washington owned many slaves. He began opposing slavery near the end of his life, and provided in his will for the eventual manumission of his slaves.Washington's image is an icon of American culture and he has been extensively memorialized; his namesakes include the national capital and the State of Washington. In both popular and scholarly polls, he is consistently considered one of the greatest presidents in American history.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:46 UTC on Friday, 4 July 2025.For the full current version of the article, see George Washington on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Olivia.

Send us a textBe it resolved: America's founders established a secular government with provision for a religious people. When the delegates met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they deliberately prevented the government from favoring any religion. Then when the Bill of Rights were added, freedom of religious expression was guaranteed. Those who wanted a Christian government at the time were upset at what they called the religious defect in the Constitution. They were honest enough to admit what today's Christian nationalists often cover up: The Constitution is not a Christian document and the nation was not founded on the basis of Christianity. The Christian myths surrounding the Constitutional Convention and Constitution came out later. At the time, most people recognized that the founding was secular. This is a bonus episode with regular segments to return in July. Music provided by Earl's Taco Shack. Segment written by Warren Throckmorton

Today, Sinn Féin brought a Private Member's Bill on extending voting rights to Irish Citizens outside the state for the Presidential Election.This has been hotly debated for years, with the Constitutional Convention first recommending this extension in 2013.Sinn Féin Senator Conor Murphy joins guest host Jonathan Healy to discuss.

In this episode I use a piece of audio designed to "teach people" about the constitutional convention to show what a truly absurd official narrative that it. This is simply one part of about a 15 part series I made on the constitutional convention and ratification of the document showing that what we're told is as absurd as "safe & effective". The Quash comes out on Select Sundays. You can follow me on Twitter I'm Legalman@UScrimeReview.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, there's the horseshoe theory against Israel on Iran, which says that the radical left and right political ideologies, such as radical leftists (e.g., Communists, Islamists) and far-right groups (e.g., Klansmen, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, isolationists), converge in their views and actions, forming an alliance despite apparent differences. That's why we see Bernie Sanders agree with Chatsworth Qatarlson (Tucker Carlson) and Steve Bannon. Bannon claims Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Kayleigh McEnany, and Fox News should be investigated for supporting Israel. One would think he would be careful about saying who should be investigated after his past. Matt Gaetz is back saying that Israel doesn't allow Arabs to vote, which is a flat-out lie.  As time goes on these people all reveal themselves as the crazy people they are with no loyalty to President Trump or MAGA. Also, Trump is a historic figure leading efforts to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel's military actions, including destroying Iranian radar and weakening their defenses, make it easier for U.S. or Israeli forces to strike nuclear sites like Fordo. Americans are not warmongers or neo-cons. The American public supports these actions, rejects isolationism, and opposes being labeled warmongers by “fake MAGA” critics. Later, Gov Ron DeSantis calls in to explain Florida's efforts to evacuate Americans in Israel. The state evacuated 1,500 people, including college students and families, with two planeloads of 160-170 passengers already returned to Tampa. He emphasized the emotional relief of families, particularly those with young children, and Florida's commitment to continue the mission, utilizing resources like cruise ships to Cyprus for safe transport. DeSantis also discusses his push to reform property taxes in Florida, focusing on exempting primary residences (homesteaded properties) from property taxes. Homeowners don't truly own their homes if they must continuously pay property taxes, as failure to pay could result in government seizure. Finally, Alexander Hamilton's view of liberty and government contrasted sharply with that of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, favoring a stronger, more centralized federal authority. While Madison, in Federalist No. 45, emphasized that the Constitution granted the federal government limited, defined powers—primarily over external affairs like war and foreign commerce—leaving broad authority to the states, Hamilton advocated for a more robust national government. At the Constitutional Convention, he proposed a powerful executive and legislature with lifelong terms, reflecting his preference for centralized control, though these ideas were swiftly rejected. Despite his role in co-authoring the Federalist Papers to support the Constitution's ratification, Hamilton's vision aligns with modern proponents of an activist government, contributing to his popularity among contemporary elites in media, politics, and academia, as evidenced by Hamilton the musical. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode: Constitutional scholar Sai Prakash of the University of Virginia joins us to explore the origins, evolution, and modern realities of presidential power. Drawing on historical debates from the Constitutional Convention, Prakash outlines how early framers envisioned a limited executive—primarily tasked with enforcing laws—and how that vision has shifted over time. Prakash and our Host, Norm Leahy, examine landmark developments including the rise of popular mandates, the use of emergency declarations, expansions of war powers, and the increasing use of executive action in areas where Congress has not legislated. Prakash also discusses the courts' role in interpreting executive authority, the limits of congressional oversight in the polarized era we find ourselves in today, and the potential for constitutional or statutory reforms. Whether you're curious about originalism, the concept of an “imperial presidency,” or how different branches of government interact today, this episode offers a wide-ranging look at one of the central tensions in American governance.***On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.***Check out our page on America's founding document: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Constitution Explore Prakash's work and scholarship: https://www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/sp5mm/1200266 Learn more about the current executive branch of government: https://ballotpedia.org/Executive_Branch This year, we're hoping to learn more about our audience and what topics you want us to tackle. Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.

Clay's conversation with popular guest Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky on Patrick Henry. Henry began his life as a shopkeeper but rose to become the governor of Virginia and one of the handful of most essential rabble-rousers in the American Revolution. Henry and Jefferson were frenemies; at one point, Jefferson (the Deist) said to his friend Madison, “We must pray for Henry's death.” This quip was likely a joke, but Jefferson was quite critical of Henry, and he never forgave him for initiating a legislative investigation into Jefferson's conduct as the beleaguered wartime governor of Virginia. Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787 because, he said, “he smelt a rat.” He opposed ratification in Virginia, but when Jefferson and Madison were considering secession in 1798 and 1799, Henry declared to George Washington that the constitutional settlement must not be disturbed by the Jeffersonians. This episode was recorded live May 16, 2025.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 provides:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;Review the origins and debate over the authority to borrow money and hold debt as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.Understand how the Articles of Confederation provided that the debts incurred by the states and Congress would be honored, and paying down the debt was a critical reason for adopting the Constitution.  However, the Founding Fathers universally believed that the Congress under the Articles was incapable of paying the debt, and this weakness was a major reason for the calling of the Constitutional Convention.Learn how although the Constitutional Convention originally agreed that payment of the debts was mandatory and Congress would assume the debts of the States, those provisions were omitted in the Constitution. Instead, Article I, Section 8 vests the Congress with the power to borrow funds on the credit of the United States and to pay its debts. Discover how the Constitutional Convention originally agreed to create a constitutionally created Treasurer of the United States, and then agreed to eliminate the position.Review how Anti-Federalists attacked the debt power as destructive to American liberties.Explore how the debt provisions were essential to secure the good credit of the country, to repay creditors who funded the American Revolution and the Congress afterwards, and to ensure the security of the country in the future. Its abuse is to be kept in check by the reality that we elect the Congress that incurs the debt — they are accountable to We, The People.Highlights include the Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, the New Jersey Plan, the Paterson Plan, the Paterson Resolutions, the Randolph Resolutions, the Randolph Resolves, the Virginia Plan, James Madison, Shays' Rebellion, Roger Sherman, Judge John Yates, Governor Edmund Randolph, Alexander Hamilton, Gunning Bedford, Jr., Elbridge Gerry, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Ellsworth, Governor Wiliam Livingston, Roger Sherman, Dr. William Samuel Johnson, Gouverneur Morris, United States Treasurer, Rhode Island Constitutional Convention, Edward Rutledge, Virginia Constitutional Convention, Anti-Federalists, Agrippa, Brutus, John DeWitt, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, House of Representatives, United States Senate, and more.To learn more about the Constitution & Patriot Week, visit www.PatriotWeek.org. Our resources include videos, a TV series, blogs, lesson plans, and more.Read the entire original, unamended Constitution here: https://patriotweek.org/2021/07/27/the-original-constitution-september-17/Check out Judge Michael Warren's book America's Survival Guide, How to Stop America's Impending Suicide by Reclaiming Our First Principles and History at Amazon or other major on-line retailers.Join us!

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

June 4, 2025 ~ Michigan voters will decide in 2026 whether to hold a constitutional convention to rewrite the state's 1963 constitution, and many lawmakers stand behind this. Senator Aric Nesbitt joins Chris and Jamie to discuss the need to simplify and clarify the state's constitution.

Host Joe DeMare talks about the Canadian wildfire haze blanketing the midwest and links that to Ohio's SB1 which forces public university teachers to teach global warming denial. Then he interviews Tristan Rader about the move to have Ohio join the call for a constitutional convention which would rewrite the US constitution, making environmental laws impossible. Rebecca Wood talks about her experience with Brown Bears at the Toledo Zoo. Ecological News includes records being set by California wind and solar, and Ontario's Premier Doug Ford attempting to implement Trump's energy and environmental agenda. 

On the sixty-first episode, Shane and Ben are joined by Joseph Natali, a Ph.D. student at Baylor University dissertating on the constitutionalism of bureaucracy and how Presidents succeed or fail in exercising control over the executive branch. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the sixtieth episode, Matthew and Ben are joined by Shilo Brooks, Executive Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to discuss his immensely popular course "The Art of Statesmanship and the Political Life." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

PRESIDENTIAL VOTING RIGHTSIn a historic vote in the Assembly last week its members overwhelmingly passed by 46 votes to 25 - a motion calling on the Irish government to implement the recommendation of the 2013 Constitutional Convention on the Constitution to extend “the right to vote in elections for President of Ireland to all Irish citizens on the island of Ireland.” The reality of course is that successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments have deliberately refused to implement this recommendation despite having 12 years to do so. DONNACHA RYNNEDonnacha died last week. I had planned to visit him in July. Unfortunately, that will not be. Donnacha loved West Belfast. And West Clare. He loved life. He lived in the nowness. Donnacha remains an inspiration. 

On the fifty-ninth episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on the omnipotence of the majority. They discuss Tocqueville's warnings of the detrimental effects of democracy on the citizen. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

5pm: Separating art from the artist // President Trump in the Middle East // Today in History: 1787- Constitutional Convention delegates begin to assemble // 1998 - Frank Sinatra dies // Letters 

This Day in Legal History: Arrival of Constitutional DelegatesOn May 14, 1787, delegates from several states began arriving in Philadelphia for what would become the Constitutional Convention, a pivotal moment in American legal history. Originally convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, the gathering quickly evolved into a full-scale effort to draft a new framework of government. Only a handful of delegates were present on the 14th, but their arrival marked the start of weeks of foundational debate and compromise.The Convention was held at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as Independence Hall, a site already steeped in revolutionary significance. Delegates represented a range of political and economic interests, and their regional differences would shape much of the debate to come. The eventual goal was to create a system that balanced federal and state authority while preventing tyranny through a series of checks and balances.While May 14 was the scheduled opening, a quorum was not achieved until May 25, delaying formal proceedings. Nonetheless, early arrivals used the time to strategize and lay the groundwork for proposals. Among them was James Madison, whose extensive preparation and later contributions earned him the title "Father of the Constitution."The Convention would ultimately produce the United States Constitution, replacing the Articles of Confederation and establishing the three branches of government. This foundational legal document remains the supreme law of the land, with its principles guiding American governance to this day.In a new analysis, the Tax Law Center critiques the House Ways and Means Committee's proposal to expand the section 199A pass-through business income deduction, calling it a costly move that deepens existing inequities in the tax code. Originally enacted under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, section 199A allows qualifying owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their income. This benefit is already skewed heavily toward the top 1% of earners and industries such as law and lobbying. The provision, which expires after 2025 under current law, has not shown evidence of boosting economic activity and has instead encouraged tax avoidance strategies.The new proposal would raise the deduction rate from 20% to 23% and remove the income cap that currently limits eligibility for higher earners in certain industries. This change would particularly benefit high-income professionals whose pass-through income makes up a large share of their earnings. For example, under the proposed rules, a law firm partner earning $247,300 could receive a deduction of nearly $20,000—whereas they would get nothing under current 2025 law.The revised rules would also alter how phase-outs are calculated, increasing the value of the deduction for top earners while reducing it for some taxpayers whose income includes a mix of wages and pass-through business earnings. The analysis warns that these changes may incentivize further reclassification of income to exploit the deduction. Additionally, the proposal extends the favorable treatment to interest income received through Business Development Companies (BDCs), providing a new tax break for certain investment structures favored by private funds.Ways and Means proposes making costly 199A “pass-through” deduction more generous and valuable to high-income earnersHarvard University has broadened its lawsuit against the federal government, escalating a legal dispute over the termination of billions in federal funding. The amended complaint, filed in federal court in Boston, follows a new wave of agency letters formally cutting off $450 million in grants and reaffirming the earlier freeze of over $2.2 billion. The government attributes the funding halt to Harvard's alleged failure to address antisemitic incidents on campus.Harvard argues that the funding freeze is an unconstitutional retaliation for its refusal to cede academic control to federal authorities. The university maintains that these actions violate its First Amendment rights, particularly in relation to academic freedom and decision-making in areas like faculty hiring and student admissions. The complaint asserts that the administration is effectively punishing Harvard for not aligning with its political and ideological expectations.The dispute has wide-ranging implications, threatening numerous research initiatives and sectors dependent on Harvard's federal support. Agencies including the NIH, USDA, DOE, DOD, and HUD have all issued letters stating the university's recent conduct undermines federal priorities, leaving no room for corrective action.Harvard President Alan Garber has condemned the funding cuts as political overreach, warning they jeopardize core institutional freedoms. Meanwhile, a federal task force countered with a public rebuke of Harvard's leadership, accusing it of fostering discrimination and failing to protect Jewish students.A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 21.Harvard Expands Lawsuit Against US as Funding Feud Deepens (1)A Los Angeles judge resentenced Erik and Lyle Menendez to 50 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, replacing their original sentence of life without parole for the 1989 murder of their parents. The decision followed emotional testimony from family members, former prison officials, and a rehabilitated inmate who credited the brothers with his transformation. Judge Michael Jesic noted that while the crime was shocking, the brothers' prison records and support from correctional staff and victims' relatives were extraordinary, calling the case a “unicorn.”The Menendez brothers are now immediately eligible for parole, with a hearing scheduled for June 13. Their attorney, Mark Geragos, said the new sentence reflects evolving views on incarceration and rehabilitation. During the hearing, both brothers expressed remorse and outlined plans for continued advocacy if released—Lyle focusing on prison rehabilitation through green spaces, and Erik on hospice programs for elderly inmates.The resentencing aligns with the position of former L.A. District Attorney George Gascón, who had supported a review of their case based on claims of childhood sexual abuse and their youth at the time of the crime. However, current DA Nathan Hochman opposed the change, questioning the brothers' remorse and pointing to a moderate risk assessment in related clemency proceedings.Prosecutors also scrutinized the brothers' past trial conduct, alleging they encouraged perjury and had not been truthful about the events surrounding the murder. Despite this, their family members testified they felt safe around Erik and Lyle both before and after the killings and urged an end to the decades-long public scrutiny.Menendez Brothers Given Chance of Parole With New Sentence (3)Wisconsin Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of obstructing proceedings and concealing a person from arrest. The charges stem from an April 18 incident in which Dugan allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, avoid immigration agents by allowing him to leave through a restricted jury door near her courtroom. The agents, who lacked a judicial warrant, were waiting to detain him outside the courthouse.Dugan was arrested on April 25 and has since been temporarily suspended from her judicial duties by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Her legal team maintains that she is innocent and expects to be exonerated during court proceedings. The case raises questions about the limits of judicial discretion when intersecting with federal immigration enforcement.Wisconsin judge indicted on obstructing immigration case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On the fifty-eighth episode, Shane, Matthew, and Ben are joined by William B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University, to discuss Montesquieu's political philosophy and its influence on the American Founding and eighteenth-century British politics. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.