Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael McConnell

"The Declaration meets the machine age" In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell frames a question the Founders never confronted: if the Declaration grounds rights in human nature, what happens when machines can generate persuasive, human-like language at scale? Constitutional scholar Alexander Tsesis argues that the Declaration's conception of rights is inherently human-centered—rooted in consciousness, moral agency, intentionality, and the capacity to participate in a constitutional republic—so AI systems are not and should not become First Amendment rights-holders. He warns that treating large language models as protected “speakers” would be a major break from the Declaration's principles and could make ordinary democratic regulation—transparency requirements, labeling of synthetic content, safety rules, data practices, and restrictions on deceptive election deepfakes—far harder by forcing courts into strict scrutiny review. Stanford historian Anne Twitty broadens the lens by situating abolitionists' use of the Declaration within wider 19th-century conflicts over speech and constitutional meaning, reminding listeners that rival traditions—including censorship and suppression—also shaped American practice. She also presses a key tension in Tsesis's framework: abolitionists championed not only the right to speak, but the public's right to hear, circulate, and access contested ideas (as seen in the abolitionist postal campaign and opposition to the congressional gag rule). That listener-centered strand, she suggests, could potentially be invoked by scholars arguing for some constitutional shelter for AI-generated communications—an argument Tsesis acknowledges but ultimately resists by emphasizing that the First Amendment's core purpose is protecting human expression and self-government, not machine output. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:26] Chapter 1- Framing Question: Do constitutional rights grounded in “human nature” apply to AI? Host Michael McConnell introduces the episode's core dilemma: the Declaration's natural-rights logic underwrites later constitutional protections like free speech—so where does that leave generative AI? [00:01:18] Chapter 2 - Thesis: Why Tsesis says AI can't be a First Amendment rights-holder Alexander Tsesis argues the Declaration and Constitution are human-centered: AI lacks consciousness, moral agency, and political personhood, so extending rights to LLMs would depart from founding principles and hinder regulation. [00:10:08] Chapter 3 - Regulatory Stakes: What happens if courts treat LLM outputs as protected “speech”? Tsesis warns that First Amendment coverage for AI could trigger strict scrutiny and undermine laws on transparency, labeling, safety, data practices, and election deepfakes—citing recent doctrine and cases like Reed v. Town of Gilbert. [00:52:35] Chapter 4 - Historical Challenge: Do abolitionists' “right to hear” arguments support listener-centric AI rights? Historian Anne Twitty complicates the record: abolitionists elevated the Declaration, but censorship traditions were strong; she highlights abolitionist campaigns (postal campaign, gag rule) to argue listener rights might bolster pro-AI speech theories. [01:04:17] Chapter 5 - Tsesis Response: Listener rights matter—but is the First Amendment still speaker-centered? Tsesis agrees the right to receive information is important, yet maintains free speech is fundamentally about protecting human intention and self-expression, not conferring constitutional status on machine outputs. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“Two competing originalist instincts” In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution alongside Eugene Volokh, the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford), and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus (and Distinguished Research Professor) at UCLA School of Law. Barnett and Volokh share respect for the Declaration's importance but diverge on what that importance does in law. Barnett sees the Declaration as the “ground and foundation of future government,” supplying binding premises about “just powers” and limiting even broad state “police power” claims that risk subverting rights. Volokh counters that the Declaration resembles a political platform and persuasive rhetoric—valuable for context and values, but too general and historically contingent to function as enforceable law without tethering to more specific legal texts. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters [00:00:26] Chapter 1: Framing Question: Is the Declaration “law” if courts can't directly enforce it? Host Michael McConnell opens by contrasting Justice Barrett and Justice Scalia's view—Declaration as ideals, not law—with Randy Barnett's claim that the Declaration functions as foundational law shaping constitutional meaning. [00:01:54] Chapter 2: Setting the Stage: Why Barnett and Volokh, and why this debate now? McConnell introduces Barnett and Volokh, highlighting their originalist and civil-libertarian influence and teeing up the central question: “Is the Declaration our law?” [00:06:11] Chapter 3: Barnett's Case-in-Chief: How did Salmon P. Chase use the Declaration as law in anti-slavery litigation? Barnett argues the Declaration supplied a liberty baseline in 19th-century practice—especially in the Matilda and Van Zandt cases—supporting “clear statement” rules and strict construction against liberty-restricting interpretations. [00:37:38] Chapter 4: Volokh's Challenge: What is the Declaration—and what isn't it? Volokh contends the Declaration is best understood as a political platform/announcement with legal significance as an independence claim, but not as governing law; it can guide interpretation mainly when reinforced by constitutional provisions like the Ninth Amendment. [00:56:04] Chapter 5: Barnett's Rebuttal: Can the Declaration shape doctrine without giving judges a blank check? Barnett responds that “law” is broader than judicially enforceable rules, arguing the Declaration legitimately informs burdens of justification and doctrines (due process meaning, presumptions of liberty vs. constitutionality) while remaining constrained by legal method and natural-rights theory. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode reframes the Declaration of Independence as more than soaring ideals about equality and natural rights. Former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar argues the text contains an underappreciated architecture of government: accountability to citizens, managing political conflict across regions, and establishing legitimate authority both domestically and in the international order. The result is a Declaration that reads like a nation-building document designed to make a new state workable after revolution. Responding to Cuéllar, Larry Kramer—former Stanford Law dean, a leading scholar of democratic constitutionalism, and now president of the London School of Economics—adds a grounding historical frame: in 1776, the Declaration was shaped as much by law as by philosophy. Kramer argues the grievances were understood as claims that Britain had violated the colonies' constitutional rights under the British customary constitution, which helps explain why the Declaration's “structural” ideas are often implicit rather than spelled out as a blueprint. Together, Cuéllar and Kramer show how the Declaration operates in two registers: a practical indictment of governmental failure and a foundational text later generations repeatedly reinterpret to justify (or resist) evolving structures of American governance. Their exchange highlights a central tension that persists—between universal promises and the administrative choices that determine how, and for whom, those promises are implemented. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — Framing question: Is the Declaration also a “blueprint for government”? Host Michael McConnell sets up the episode's core premise and introduces guests Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar and Larry Kramer to explore the Declaration's structural dimensions. [00:05:21] Chapter 2 — Cuéllar's thesis: “Text vs. territory” and the Declaration as state-building Cuéllar argues the Declaration is not just a creed; it catalogs governance failures under George III and implies the need for a sovereign that can function at home and abroad. [00:06:04] Chapter 3 — The Freedom Train as a case study in ideals meeting administration (1947–48) Using the racially integrated Freedom Train—and its refusal to stop in segregated cities—Cuéllar spotlights the friction between universal principles and on-the-ground governance. [00:13:07] Chapter 4 — 1890–1950: expansion of the administrative state and contested equality Cuéllar walks through key moments (Du Bois/Niagara Movement, Wilson at Independence Hall, Becker vs. Coolidge, FDR's “Second Bill of Rights,” Ho Chi Minh quoting Jefferson) to show how the Declaration structures recurring fights over equality, borders, and state capacity. [00:28:51] Chapter 5 — Kramer's response: the Declaration's legal-constitutional origins and how texts evolve Kramer argues the Declaration was fundamentally a legal brief grounded in the British customary constitution; its grievances alleged constitutional violations, and later generations repurpose founding texts to frame new disputes. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tonight's rundown: Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Tuesday, June 30, 2026. Stand Up for Your Country.  Talking Points Memo: Bill looks at which states are refusing to participate in the Great American State Fair. Michael McConnell, a Stanford Law professor, weighs in on the three recent Supreme Court decisions. President Trump calls democratic socialists the biggest threat to the nation, while Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) makes the same claim about the president. Are gas companies illegally price gouging?  Bill questions whether the President will launch military action in Iran before or after the 4th. Final Thought: A sneak peek of Bill's upcoming NewsNation special. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode of The Declaration at 250 discussion spotlights a striking—and often overlooked—line in the Declaration of Independence: when despotism becomes systematic, “it is their right, it is their duty” to throw off such government. Martha Minow probes why the text escalates from permission to obligation, arguing that the “duty” language radically reframes political resistance as a moral demand, not merely a justified option. The episode asks what that duty requires, who must act, and what it means for citizens facing injustice today. Minow traces possible roots of this obligation in natural law and the “law of nations,” social contract ideas, and religious traditions that shaped the founders' moral vocabulary—where obedience to rulers was often understood as conditional on legitimacy and higher law. She also raises the thorny question of who counted as “the people” at the founding (noting exclusions such as enslaved people and many Native persons), and how later movements—from abolition to global self-determination struggles—have invoked the Declaration's language to justify resistance. Jenny Martinez extends the inquiry by emphasizing the Declaration's closing mutual pledge—“our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”—as a concrete act that binds a community and helps explain how the document generates enduring civic obligations, not only to oppose tyranny but to carry forward the promise of equality across generations. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:  [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — The Declaration's “duty” to resist tyranny (Series setup) Michael McConnell frames the episode around the Declaration's claim of a duty—not just a right—to throw off despotism. [00:03:31] Chapter 2 — Minow's close read: why “duty” changes everything Martha Minow zeroes in on the fourth sentence and explains why duty is not synonymous with right. [00:05:43] Chapter 3 — Where the duty might come from: Locke, social contract, religion Minow traces intellectual and religious sources, including Locke and Samuel Langdon's 1775 sermon after Lexington and Concord. [00:08:56] Chapter 4 — Who is “the people,” and who is duty owed to? Minow questions who was included/excluded, then connects duty to universal law, human rights, and global self-determination movements. [00:26:41] Chapter 5 — Martinez: duties, limits on revolution, and the “mutual pledge” Jenny Martinez contrasts civic duty traditions and argues the Declaration's lasting obligation is the mutual pledge to uphold its promises over time. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the opening episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and historian David Kennedy to ask a deceptively simple question: what does it actually take for democracy to work? Rice argues that the Declaration of Independence marks not the birth of democracy, but the end of tyranny—and that the real work begins afterward. Democracies flourish only when citizens build durable institutions: a workable balance of power among branches, an independent judiciary, and (often most crucially) a vibrant civil society that channels protest into law, governance, and everyday problem-solving. Drawing on her experiences—from segregated Birmingham to global transitions—Rice highlights how democracies fail when executives become unchecked (Russia) or when states are too weak to govern (Afghanistan), and how they can succeed when institutions gain legitimacy over time (Poland, Kenya, and examples shaped by external constraints like the EU). Kennedy responds by tracing the Declaration's promise of equality as principle, observed condition, aspiration, and enforceable law—while emphasizing the tension between democratic equality and a pluralistic society. He closes with a warning about declining trust in institutions and one another, urging renewed attention to civil society—the practical, local, often unglamorous work that turns founding ideals into lived reality. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:00] Welcome & series launch (Karlan + McConnell) Pam Karlan introduces the special episode; Michael McConnell launches The Declaration at 250 and the project's guiding question. [00:00:54] Framing the episode: What does democracy need to flourish? McConnell previews the episode's focus on democratic flourishing, featuring Condoleezza Rice with response from historian David Kennedy. [00:02:04] Rice: The Declaration ends tyranny; democracy is the harder next step Rice argues the Declaration is fundamentally revolutionary—overthrowing the old—raising the problem of how revolutions become democracies. [00:06:05] Rice: America's conditions, near-failures, and why separation of powers matters Rice describes the U.S. “luck,” the near-collapse under the Articles and the Civil War, and the Constitution's durability through distributed power. [00:11:37] Rice: Civil rights, law, and a “second founding” (1964–65) Drawing on personal experience and movement strategy, Rice emphasizes institutional change—litigation, amendments, and landmark legislation—as democracy's engine. [00:20:00] Rice: Institutions vs. culture—lessons from Russia, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Poland, Kenya, Hungary Rice rejects “DNA for democracy” explanations and shows how executive strength, civil society, and institutional legitimacy shape success or failure. [00:32:33] Kennedy: Equality's evolving meaning—and the civil society trust crisis Kennedy traces equality from Jefferson to the 14th Amendment and warns that declining trust and civic know-how signal weakening civil society. [00:42:52] Kennedy's question: “Spirit of constitutionalism,” plus depersonalization (social media/suburbanization) Rice defines constitutionalism as lived civic practice beyond paper rights; both discuss forces eroding community and shared institutions before closing. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

00:00:00 — What new can be said about the Declaration at 250? McConnell opens with the core question and frames 250 years of interpretation, celebration, and controversy. 00:00:58 — The big themes the series will test: democracy, critiques, duties, and constitutional influence A preview of the agenda: what makes democracies flourish, modern challenges to founding principles, rights versus duties, and the Declaration's impact on state constitutions and government structure. 00:01:19 — The forward-looking questions: law, AI, and America's “promissory note” The trailer highlights upcoming debates over whether the Declaration is law, how it applies to artificial intelligence, and its continuing moral force from Lincoln to MLK.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In Part 2 of our conversation with Stanford cardiologist Dr. McConnell, we dive deep into the medications that treat heart disease and the latest evidence on what works best. Discover how medical guidelines are evolving, what new breakthroughs have emerged, and how to have informed conversations with your doctor about your treatment options.

Heart Disease Prevention: The Complete Cardiologist's Guide to Statins & Early Detection 700,000 Americans die from heart disease every year but most of these deaths are PREVENTABLE. In this groundbreaking episode, Dr. McConnell from Stanford reveals how to treat your heart like cancer: with early detection, proper treatment, and personalized prevention strategies that actually save lives.

From supply chain volatility and geopolitical unrest to workforce challenges and transformative technologies, manufacturers need to learn how to survive—and thrive—in dynamic environments where flexibility is critical. Quickparts CEO Avi Reichental and SME Media's Steve Plumb and Michael McConnell discuss what this means for the industry today and how it could impact the future.   Reichental leads Quickparts' global operations, creating components for aerospace, medical and mobility through additive manufacturing. This episode is a recording of the latest episode of Advanced Manufacturing Live. Previous episodes of Advanced Manufacturing Live are available on advancedmanufacturing.org/live. Follow SME Media on Facebook, LinkedIn, X and YouTube to join us live every other Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.

The end of this week finds the 3WHH crew in situ in Enna, up in the highlands of Sicily, visiting the University of Kore for a conference on, well, everything, though it is hard to tell since half the speakers are speaking in Italian and the rest of us arenspeaking in English. John Yoo's incoming plane was delayed—again—but it gave us the prompt we needed to have in John place R.J. Pestritto, the Dean of graduate education at Hillsdale College, but above all one of the most treachant critics of the Progressive revolution of the early 20th century, and the insidious administrative state it birthed. If ever you want to throw down on Woodrow Wilson—and what sensible person doesn't?—R.J. is your man.For this episode we consider R.J.'s recent short monograph for the Claremont Institute's "Provocations" series, Government by the Unelected: How It Happened, and How It Might Be Tamed. Settle in with your favorite chianti for this one, as "D.J.—R.J" as I like to call him when he gets rolling on this subject, really gets rolling on this subject with us.For this episode, recorded in a hotel lobby with some visitors wandering by our "field recording studio (which included Michael McConnell listening in for some of it), we decided to keep the "authentic feel" of the background noise, in case you get to wondering.

In this special episode, recorded at the Neukom Center's Rule of Law Speaker Series, Judge J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge and ex-General Counsel of Boeing,  discusses a looming constitutional crises facing the United States. Drawing on Lincoln, Paine, and Churchill, Judge Luttig argues that the Trump administration's actions represent not the exploitation of constitutional vulnerabilities, but unconstitutional conduct that federal courts have repeatedly struck down. He expresses particular alarm over the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket to stay lower court decisions without briefing, argument, or written reasoning — a practice he characterizes as a crisis within the Court itself. Judge Luttig also addresses the DOJ's institutional corruption, Congress's abdication of war powers and tariff authority, and the Supreme Court's sweeping immunity ruling in Trump v. United States. Throughout, he challenges law students to treat their professional oath as a solemn civic obligation in a moment of national testing. Links: Honorable J. Michael Luttig >>> Federal Judicial Center page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) America at 250—A Nation Under Assault from Within (14:00) The Legal Profession as Guardian of the Constitution  (20:30) Unconstitutional by Design—The Trump Administration's Legal Record (28:00) The Corruption of the DOJ (36:00) Congress, the War Power, and the Collapse of Separation of Powers (42:30) The Supreme Court, the Shadow Docket, and Presidential Immunity  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In our latest Two Think Minimum podcast we talk with Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell about two landmark Supreme Court cases reshaping presidential power. McConnell, who represented challengers in the historic tariff case striking down the President's use of IEEPA, explains how the Court's application of the Major Questions Doctrine reinforces Congress's constitutional authority over taxation while limiting executive overreach. The conversation then turns to the anticipated overturning of Humphrey's Executor, which would eliminate for-cause removal protections for independent agency heads. McConnell argues these cases reflect consistent constitutional principles: Congress controls how much power the executive branch has, while the elected president must control the powers that exist within it.

USDA livestock analyst Michael McConnell looks at the March Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report for clues on both pork supply and demand going into the spring and summer grilling season. USDA Radio NewslineSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

USDA livestock analyst Michael McConnell provides the numbers from the March Cattle on Feed Report. USDA Radio NewslineSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Hoover Institution Center for Revitalizing American Institutions webinar series features speakers who are developing innovative ideas, conducting groundbreaking research, and taking important actions to improve trust and efficacy in American institutions. Speaker expertise and topics span governmental institutions, civic organizations and practice, and the role of public opinion and culture in shaping our democracy. The webinar series builds awareness about how we can individually and collectively revitalize American institutions to ensure our country's democracy delivers on its promise. The Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) held a webinar—co-sponsored by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center—about Judicial Importance, Independence, and Legitimacy in Polarized Times with Michael McConnell, Tom Clark, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh on March 4, 2026, from 10:00-11:30 a.m. PT. Have federal courts been too permissive—or too obstructive—of President Trump's agenda? The answer often depends on one's political perspective. Yet across the spectrum, there's broad agreement that the courts have come under intense pressure and scrutiny in recent years. As the country has grown more politically sorted, the judiciary's role in our system of self-governance has evolved and, for some, grown more contested. Join us for a timely and thought-provoking webinar featuring scholars with diverse viewpoints who explore how the federal courts are functioning—and perceived—amid today's polarized political landscape. Panelists examine questions such as: What is the judiciary's role in safeguarding democracy? How can courts maintain legitimacy in a divided society? And how should we interpret recent high-profile rulings in the broader context of American constitutionalism?                                        

Heart disease should be treated just like cancer, says guest Mike McConnell, an author and expert in preventive cardiology at Stanford: Detect and stage early, then treat aggressively. In his practice, McConnell focuses on using low-dose CT imaging for detecting early coronary artery disease. He also helped pioneer the use of AI to infer cardiovascular risk from retinal scans. Such non-invasive, consumer-friendly tools could expand prevention, personalize therapy, and cut heart attacks and strokes across the board, he says. “Everybody also deserves a proactive preventive cardiologist in their phone,” McConnell tells host Russ Altman of the latest approaches to heart disease on this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcast. Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu. Episode Reference Links: Stanford Profile: Michael V. McConnell, MD, MSEE Connect With Us: Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything Website Connect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / Mastodon Connect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Chapters: (00:00:00) Introduction Russ Altman introduces guest Michael McConnell, a professor of cardiology at Stanford University. (00:03:02) Reframing Heart Disease Why coronary disease should be approached the same as cancer. (00:05:46) Core Risk Factors The key drivers of cardiovascular disease, and life's essential eight. (00:07:18) Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring How low-dose CT scanning detects disease before symptoms develop. (00:08:57) The Limits of Stress Testing Why traditional stress tests often miss early coronary disease. (00:10:18) AI in Cardiac Imaging Using AI to identify hidden risks in routine chest scans. (00:11:30) Retinal Imaging How AI analysis of retinal blood vessels can predict heart disease risk. (00:14:55) Detecting Risk Before Symptoms Why retinal and vascular changes occur long before clinical signs appear. (00:15:58) Staging Coronary Disease Using calcium scores to stage coronary disease and personalize treatment. (00:19:36) Direct-to-Consumer Prevention The rise of mobile health records, wearable devices, and AI tools. (00:22:23) Opportunities & System Challenges Balancing accessibility, guideline-based care, and healthcare system capacity. (00:25:26) AI-Powered Health Record Analysis The potential of automated reviews to identify silent risk factors. (00:27:41) Physician Adoption & System Friction Barriers to integrating early detection tools into clinical practice. (00:30:12) Advances in Treatment Overview of current cholesterol therapies and plaque stabilization. (00:33:31) Future In a Minute Rapid-fire Q&A: prevention, implementation science, and future hopes. (00:35:38) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

America's manufacturing sector continues to face a critical skilled labor shortage—but one highly capable talent pool often goes overlooked: military veterans. In this episode of Advanced Manufacturing Now, host Rachel Thomas, editor at SME Media, is joined by Michael McConnell, senior editor at SME Media, to discuss his upcoming February feature in Manufacturing Engineering & Technology magazine.

Cattle supplies blamed for high beef prices remain tight, according to the latest USDA cattle reports. USDA livestock analyst Michael McConnell has the details. NAFB News ServiceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Small businesses that sued President Trump over his tariffs aren't just looking to end them — they're also hoping to get a refund from Uncle Sam to make up for their losses over the last months. The Supreme Court will hear their case Nov. 5, in what is shaping up as one of the big cases this term testing the limits of the president's powers. Michael McConnell, one of the lawyers for the five small businesses, told "Court Watch" host Alex Swoyer that they've suffered serious setbacks since the president hiked tariffs, including one of the firms that's teetering on bankruptcy.

In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president's decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president's trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution's architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government's three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.Links:Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PagePam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The 2025 Maryland Irish Festival is coming up on November 7th, 8th, and 9th.  On the podcast today, Irish Baseball Podcast host Rick Becker will talk with Michael McConnell.  Michael is the President of the Maryland Irish Festival, and will let us know everything we can expect if we attend this year's festivities.

What matters more for your heart: diet, exercise, or sleep? ✅ In Part 2, Dr. Michael McConnell breaks down the daily habits that protect your arteries, why the Mediterranean diet is the gold standard, and how even small changes lower the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Can your eye exam reveal heart disease, diabetes, and even Alzheimer's before symptoms appear?

In this episode, Christine Chabot of Marquette University Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join to discuss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's termination and the broader legal and constitutional issues it raises, such as the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and the scope of the president's removal power.    Resources Trump v. Wilcox (2025) Collins v. Yellin (2021) Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) Christine Chabot, “Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies,” Notre Dame Law Review (2020) Michael McConnell, “Opinion: Save the Federal Reserve's independence by splitting the agency,” Washington Post (September 3, 2025) In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.  Follow Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness on Apple Podcast and Spotify.     Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.  Support our important work:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore […]

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. 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

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On April 30, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which examines the constitutionality of religious charter schools. In this episode, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Steven Green of Willamette University join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments, debate the meaning and history of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and survey the Court's other religion cases from this term.  Resources:  Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Carson v. Makin (2022) Michael McConnell and Nathan S. Chapman, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience (2023) Steven Green et al. Brief of Historians and Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond   Michael McConnell et al. Brief for Amici Curiae Religious Liberty Scholars In Support of Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission  Michael McConnell et al. Brief for Professors Douglas Laycock, Richard W. Garnett, Thomas C. Berg, Michael W. McConnell, and David M. Smolin as Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioners, Mahmoud v. Taylor  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

From January 26, 2021: Jack Goldsmith sat down with Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of the new book, "The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution." They discussed McConnell's textual historical approach to interpreting presidential power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the many novel elements of executive power embodied in Article II and the proper understanding of Article II's Vesting Clause. They also talked about contemporary implications of Michael's reading of Article II for war powers, the unitary executive and late impeachments.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

USDA livestock analyst Michael McConnell provides some of the details from the initial Quarter Hogs and Pigs Report for 2025.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kate Huddleston, senior legal counsel of litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has acted lawfully in firing federal workers and freezing federal spending.  Resources Campaign Legal Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (March 3, 2025)  Michael McConnell and Laurence Tribe, “Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?,” Open to Debate (March 7, 2025)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Michael McConnell is a Stanford Law professor and today we will discuss the Chevron Doctrine. The Supreme Court has just repealed the Chevron Doctrine in one of the Supreme Court's most important rulings of the year. This decision ends judicial deference for interpretations made by bureaucrats in the Federal agencies. For the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has allowed bureaucratic experts to interpret ambiguous statutes if their analysis was reasonable. No more. Now decision making goes back to the judiciary on how to interpret the law. Get full access to What Happens Next in 6 Minutes with Larry Bernstein at www.whathappensnextin6minutes.com/subscribe

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 ruling in the landmark case Trump v. United States, finding that the president is entitled to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts, but not for unofficial acts. In this episode, Sai Prakash of the University of Virginia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to delve into the Supreme Court's immunity decision and explore the history of presidential power and immunity from the founding to present day, and whether the Court's decision comports with the original understanding of the Constitution.     Resources:  Trump v. United States (2024)  Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)  Michael McConnell, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution (2020)  “Former Federal Judge Michael McConnell Discusses Presidential Immunity and Trump Cases with Pam Karlan,” Stanford Legal podcast   Sai Prakash,  Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive (2015)   Sai Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers (2020)   “Does the Supreme Court ruling make the president a king? Not quite, says this Virginia law professor,” WTOP News (July 2, 2024)   Sai Prakash, Prosecuting and Punishing Our Presidents, Texas Law Review (Nov. 2021)     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Should presidents be immune from prosecution? If yes, under what circumstances? Stanford Professor Michael McConnell, a former federal judge, joins Pam Karlan for a discussion on presidential immunity, the Constitution, and former president Trump's cases. In this insightful episode, they discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's stance on criminal versus civil liabilities for presidents, the political ramifications of prosecutorial actions, and the historical context of executive power under the U.S. Constitution.

USDA livestock analyst Michael McConnell discusses some of his takeaways from the latest Cattle on Feed report.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Meta—the parent company of Facebook and Instagram—surpassed 2 billion users in 2019, the company created an independent oversight board to review appeals of the company's decisions involving content moderation. In this episode, members of Meta's Oversight Board, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Kenji Yoshino of New York University School of Law, join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the board's structure, its key decisions, and its efforts to ensure free and fair elections in advance of the 2024 presidential election. This program was streamed live on April 29, 2024, as part of our America's Town Hall series.    Resources:  Meta Oversight Board  Former President Trump's suspension, Meta Oversight Board decision (2021)  Meet the Board  Brazilian general's speech, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023)  Altered Video of President Biden, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023)  Oversight Board Announces New Cases on Israel-Hamas Conflict for Expedited Review (Dec. 2023)  United States posts discussing abortion, Meta Oversight Board decision, (2023)  Referring to Designated Dangerous Individuals as “Shaheed”, Meta Oversight Board decision, (2023)  Cambodian prime minister, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023)  Reporting on Pakistani Parliament Speech, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023)  How to Appeal to the Oversight Board      Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.  

On Monday March 4th, the Supreme Court reversed Colorado's decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The Court unanimously held that individual states cannot bar insurrectionists from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices went further, ruling that Congress alone may enforce Section 3. In this episode, constitutional scholars Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Court's 9-0 decision to avoid a chaotic “patchwork” of state-level ballot eligibility decisions and the 5-4 majority's view that Section 3 requires Congress to act before an insurrectionist may be disqualified from office. Resources: Trump v. Anderson (2024) Mark Graber, “Trump's apologists say it doesn't matter if he's guilty of insurrection. That's not true”, The Guardian, (March 5, 2024) Mark Graber, The Forgotten Fourteenth Amendment: Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty (2023)  Michael McConnell, “Is Donald Trump Disqualified from the Presidency? A Response to Matthew J. Franck”, Public Discourse, (Jan. 18, 2024) Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy, (Aug. 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Prof. William Baude joins Sarah and David to explain why he thinks Trump's actions in 2020 might be constitutionally disqualified from running for president again. Show notes: -Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, "Insurrection," and Trump -The Sweep and Force of Section Three -AO episode about the law article Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did America's founders view religious liberty? What does it mean today? And to what does the Constitution require religious exemptions from generally applicable laws? Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty, and Michael McConnell, co-author of Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience, join for a special Constitution Day discussion to celebrate the opening of the Center's new First Amendment gallery. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  National Constitution Center's First Amendment gallery   Marci Hamilton, God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty (2014)  Marci Hamilton, “‘Warped history': How the U.S. supreme court justified gutting gay rights,”  The Guardian (Aug 23, 2023)  “Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford) on 303 Creative (the Web Site Designer / Same-Sex Wedding Case),” Volokh Conspiracy (Dec. 2022)   Michael McConnell, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience (2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Two constitutional law scholars—Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen—recently published an in-depth article arguing that President Donald Trump is disqualified for running for reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, law professors Mark Graber and Michael McConnell join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss what Section 3 means and how it applies to disqualification from office; whether President Trump's actions qualify as engaging in insurrection; whether or not Section 3 is self-executing and who can enforce it, and more.   Resources:  William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” (Aug. 2023)  Mark Graber, “Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and Ours,” Just Security (Feb 2021)   Mark Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War (2023)  Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at .  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Can Donald Trump be disqualified from holding public office? Sarah and David host a friendly debate with Michael McConnell, a former circuit judge and current Stanford law professor, over whether Donald Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or not. Also: -Hunter Biden plea deal update -Removal jurisdiction Show notes- -Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, "Insurrection," and Trump -The Sweep and Force of Section Three -David's NYT equivalent of a double bird -NYT: Inside the Hunter Biden Plea Deal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Previously U.S. Senate legal counsel and general counsel of Brigham Young University, Judge Thomas B. Griffith was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush. President Biden later appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith authored Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Biden Won and Trump Lost the 2020 Presidential Election along with former federal appeals court judges Michael McConnell and Michael Luttig. He is currently a lecturer on law at Harvard and Stanford, a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at BYU, and active in rule-of-law projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Inspired by the scholarship of Elder Matthew Holland, Judge Griffith devotes a great deal of his time to speaking and writing about the need to emphasize “civic charity” in American political life. After graduating from BYU and before beginning his legal studies at the University of Virginia, Judge Griffith was a full-time employee of the Church Educational System, directing Seminary and Institute of Religion programs in the Baltimore, Maryland area. His service in the Church includes a full-time mission to southern Africa, bishop of a family ward in northern Virginia, president of a campus stake at BYU, and teaching young single adult Institute. He also serves on the advisory board of the Faith Matters Foundation. A convert to the Church, Brother Griffith married fellow-convert Susan Stell Griffith. They live in rural northern Virginia and are the parents of six and the grandparents of eleven. Highlights 02:00 Kurt introduces the episode and Thomas Griffith. 04:20 Thomas introduces himself and his professional and religious background. 07:00 Thomas' conversion story 13:30 His first career was in the church education system. He later became a lawyer and judge. 15:00 Speaking at the BYU devotional and his popular talk, The Very Root of Christian Doctrine and his time as a stake president. Every talk and every lesson given in the stake needed to have a direct link to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 23:30 After one year of getting everyone in the stake to make the Atonement the main focus of every single talk and lesson they saw amazing results. The bishops reported back with excitement. 27:15 What it actually means to focus on and teach doctrine at church. 28:00 The most important thing that a bishop can do is put on a GREAT sacrament meeting! When Thomas was bishop he sat down with each speaker to discuss the topic and how to link it to the atonement. It was a lot of work but he focused on the details. 32:15 Where the idea and vision came from to focus more on Christ at church 35:45 The hard work that goes into establishing a culture and vision in our wards and stakes. They had to be persistent and repetitive with their messages. 38:00 Refocus the core message on Jesus and redemption so that people leave feeling uplifted and not bogged down. Speakers should be told that they aren't there to call people to repentance. “Refresh” people's hearts and make them feel encouraged and nourished. 43:45 Additional tips for making sacrament meeting great. Everything ought to flow out of the experience that we have partaking of the sacrament. You don't just take it and then move on. 45:45 Thomas' time as a judge 47:30 Lessons learned from being a judge that can also be applied to church leadership. We should also always use the counsel system and not make decisions alone. Decisions should be made through the process of discussion and disagreement. This is where revelation happens. 52:20 Thomas shares principles that he learned while serving as stake president at BYU. They wanted a pure religion community instead of the activities committee. Every ward was to form a partnership with a service provider and those would be the church activities. 58:10 You can't do everything.

Previously U.S. Senate legal counsel and general counsel of Brigham Young University, Judge Thomas B. Griffith was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush. President Biden later appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith authored Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Biden Won and Trump Lost the 2020 Presidential Election along with former federal appeals court judges Michael McConnell and Michael Luttig. He is currently a lecturer on law at Harvard and Stanford, a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at BYU, and active in rule-of-law projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Inspired by the scholarship of Elder Matthew Holland, Judge Griffith devotes a great deal of his time to speaking and writing about the need to emphasize “civic charity” in American political life. After graduating from BYU and before beginning his legal studies at the University of Virginia, Judge Griffith was a full-time employee of the Church Educational System, directing Seminary and Institute of Religion programs in the Baltimore, Maryland area. His service in the Church includes a full-time mission to southern Africa, bishop of a family ward in northern Virginia, president of a campus stake at BYU, and teaching young single adult Institute. He also serves on the advisory board of the Faith Matters Foundation. A convert to the Church, Brother Griffith married fellow-convert Susan Stell Griffith. They live in rural northern Virginia and are the parents of six and the grandparents of eleven. Highlights 02:00 Kurt introduces the episode and Thomas Griffith. 04:20 Thomas introduces himself and his professional and religious background. 07:00 Thomas' conversion story 13:30 His first career was in the church education system. He later became a lawyer and judge. 15:00 Speaking at the BYU devotional and his popular talk, The Very Root of Christian Doctrine and his time as a stake president. Every talk and every lesson given in the stake needed to have a direct link to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 23:30 After one year of getting everyone in the stake to make the Atonement the main focus of every single talk and lesson they saw amazing results. The bishops reported back with excitement. 27:15 What it actually means to focus on and teach doctrine at church. 28:00 The most important thing that a bishop can do is put on a GREAT sacrament meeting! When Thomas was bishop he sat down with each speaker to discuss the topic and how to link it to the atonement. It was a lot of work but he focused on the details. 32:15 Where the idea and vision came from to focus more on Christ at church 35:45 The hard work that goes into establishing a culture and vision in our wards and stakes. They had to be persistent and repetitive with their messages. 38:00 Refocus the core message on Jesus and redemption so that people leave feeling uplifted and not bogged down. Speakers should be told that they aren't there to call people to repentance. “Refresh” people's hearts and make them feel encouraged and nourished. 43:45 Additional tips for making sacrament meeting great. Everything ought to flow out of the experience that we have partaking of the sacrament. You don't just take it and then move on. 45:45 Thomas' time as a judge 47:30 Lessons learned from being a judge that can also be applied to church leadership. We should also always use the counsel system and not make decisions alone. Decisions should be made through the process of discussion and disagreement. This is where revelation happens. 52:20 Thomas shares principles that he learned while serving as stake president at BYU. They wanted a pure religion community instead of the activities committee. Every ward was to form a partnership with a service provider and those would be the church activities. 58:10 You can't do everything.