Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael McConnell

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.

Today, we discuss how the First Coast YMCA is bringing a community focus to the fight against chronic diseases. Plus, cardiologist Dr. Michael McConnell discusses his new book, "Fight Heart Disease like Cancer."

This Day in Legal History: Racially-Integrated Bus Service Begins in MontgomeryOn this day in legal history, December 21st, we spotlight a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement: the start of racially-integrated bus service in Montgomery, Alabama. On December 21, 1956, a significant change unfolded in the streets of Montgomery as buses began operating under a new, integrated system. This historic shift came after enduring federal court rulings that conclusively terminated the practice of on-board segregation.The genesis of this transformative moment can be traced back to the courageous efforts of the African American community in Montgomery. Their resilience was epitomized in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a protest sparked by Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white passenger. This boycott, lasting over a year, was a strategic and peaceful defiance against segregation and racial injustice.Two key figures in this historic change were Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy. As prominent leaders of the bus boycott, they symbolized the relentless struggle for equality and justice. On that significant day, they were among the first to ride the buses under the newly implemented integrated service.The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the subsequent integration of the bus service marked a crucial victory in the civil rights movement. It not only challenged and changed segregation laws but also galvanized the fight for civil rights across the United States. This event is a testament to the power of collective action and the enduring pursuit of equality.The legacy of December 21, 1956, continues to resonate as a reminder of the long and ongoing journey towards racial equality. It stands as a beacon of hope and a symbol of the enduring spirit of resistance against injustice. Today, we remember and honor this monumental day in legal history, a day that forever changed the fabric of American society.The U.S. Supreme Court, reshaped by former President Donald Trump, is set to confront a series of cases that could significantly impact the 2024 presidential election. Central to these cases is Trump's role in the events leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, where his supporters attempted to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's victory. These cases mark the Supreme Court's most politically charged involvement in elections since the decisive 2000 ruling in favor of George W. Bush.Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School, highlights the unprecedented potential of the court to influence the upcoming election, particularly regarding Trump's ballot eligibility and the progression of his federal criminal prosecution. Amidst a conservative shift in American law, the court's approach to these cases is closely watched, especially after recent rulings on key issues like abortion and gun rights.A pivotal moment is Trump's vow to challenge a Colorado court ruling disqualifying him from the state's primary ballot. The outcome of this appeal could set a precedent for similar challenges in other states. Currently, Colorado is the only state among 32 to disqualify Trump based on the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those involved in insurrection from holding federal office. The Supreme Court's decision in the Colorado case could influence similar efforts nationwide, with Michigan, a politically critical state, also considering a related case.Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, underscores the high stakes of these disputes for democracy, particularly in their implications for upholding the peaceful transition of power.The court is also entangled in criminal cases against Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested the court to rule on Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for actions related to his 2020 election defeat. Additionally, the court will decide if obstruction charges related to the January 6 assault are applicable, which could affect Trump, who faces similar charges.Trump, facing four criminal prosecutions, has pleaded not guilty in all cases. His legal team may soon seek Supreme Court intervention in a defamation lawsuit by E. Jean Carroll. Despite the court's conservative leaning, experts like Stanford Law's Michael McConnell do not anticipate bias in favor of Trump, even though the legal issues are more nuanced than in post-election litigation.Trump legal clashes reach US Supreme Court as 2024 election nears | ReutersA U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked a California law set to ban the carrying of guns in most public places from January 1. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney, of the Central District of California, issued a preliminary injunction stating that the law would unconstitutionally deprive concealed carry permit holders of their Second Amendment right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. He described the law as "sweeping" and "repugnant to the Second Amendment."California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed intentions to appeal the decision, arguing that if the ruling stands, it would put communities at risk by allowing guns in areas frequented by families and children. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the decision, voicing concerns about the proliferation of guns in sensitive areas like hospitals, libraries, and playgrounds.The law, signed in September, aimed to prohibit concealed firearms in 26 types of "sensitive places," including hospitals, playgrounds, and places of worship. Judge Carney's ruling pointed out that the law would turn almost every public place in California into a 'sensitive place,' effectively negating the Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in public.The Second Amendment's interpretation has long been debated in the U.S., especially with gun violence being a leading cause of death among children since 2020. Judge Carney referenced recent Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights, stating that individuals must be able to exercise their right to self-defense, including bearing arms responsibly.Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which filed the lawsuit, argued that the state's politicians are refusing to accept Supreme Court rulings that uphold gun carrying rights. Michel hailed the court's decision as a recognition of the state's overreach in gun control measures.US federal judge blocks California law barring guns in public | ReutersIn 2023, global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity dropped to its lowest point in a decade, influenced by high interest rates and economic slowdowns. The total M&A volume fell 18% to around $3 trillion, the lowest since 2013. Dealmakers attribute this decline to increased financing costs for acquisitions and economic uncertainties making price agreements challenging.Despite the downturn, experts foresee a rebound in M&A activity. In the United States, M&A volumes decreased by 8% to $1.42 trillion, while Europe and the Asia Pacific regions saw sharper declines. Private equity-led buyout volumes globally also fell by 38%. However, the fourth quarter of the year showed a 19% increase in deal volumes, mainly driven by significant transactions in the oil and gas industry, including Exxon Mobil's $60 billion acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources and Chevron Corp's $53 billion purchase of Hess Corp.The report highlights the challenges in deal-making due to a tough antitrust environment and lengthy regulatory reviews, especially for cross-border deals. The uncertainty of regulatory regimes due to upcoming elections in the U.S. and India may also affect M&A activities. However, corporate buyers are expected to continue their strategic M&A planning.Shareholder activism is rising, potentially driving more M&A activity. M&A advisers are optimistic, noting a more robust pipeline of deals for 2024 compared to the previous year. This optimism is echoed by Jim Langston of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, who notes an acceleration in market confidence and active transaction dialogues.Dealmakers see rebound after global M&A volumes hit decade-low | ReutersNasdaq Inc.'s rules requiring listed companies to have diverse boards or explain their absence will take effect by December 31, following the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) approval in 2021. These regulations, surviving a legal challenge from two conservative groups in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, are based on the premise that board diversity information is significant to investors.Companies must now include at least one board member who is a woman, belongs to an underrepresented minority, or identifies as LGBTQ+, or publicly explain non-compliance. Nasdaq's definition of underrepresented minorities includes various racial and ethnic groups. Exceptions are provided for newly listed companies and those with small boards.By the end of 2025, companies on Nasdaq's Global or Global Select market tiers must have at least two diverse directors—one being a woman and the other from an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+ community. Smaller firms have until 2026 to meet this requirement. Companies with small public floats or revenues can satisfy this with two female directors, regardless of minority or LGBTQ+ status. Foreign companies and smaller boards have more lenient requirements.Since 2022, companies have disclosed board demographics using Nasdaq's diversity matrix. However, a Bloomberg Law analysis observed a decrease in boards with women and minority or LGBTQ+ directors from 2022 to 2023.The Fifth Circuit could still overturn these rules if the full court decides to review the decision by the three-judge panel, which was composed of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The majority of judges on the full court are appointed by Republicans.Non-compliant companies will receive a grace period from Nasdaq's Listing Qualifications Department. Persistent non-compliance could lead to delisting, subject to an appeal to a Nasdaq hearings panel.Contested Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules Take Effect: Explained Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Joining me this week to talk about the history and development of the Establishment Clause is Nathan Chapman, the Pope F. Brock Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law. He is the co-author of the new book with Michael McConnell entitled Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience. Nathan is a preeminent scholar in the areas of constitutional law, religious liberty and ethics. His faculty page here. RELATED CONTENT 1) Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age - Tom Berg (Episode # 152) 2) Confident Pluralism - John Inazu (Episode # 55) The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento. A special thanks to Nick and Ashley Barnett for their contribution in making this podcast possible. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY.

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

In this episode:Jesse Merriam, professor of constitutional studies at Patrick Henry College, joins the podcast to talk about how we got our antiracist Constitutionhow Brown v. Board's jurisprudence unleashed a diversity regime that has usurped the written Constitution and the principles of a free societywhat we can expect for the future of affirmative action in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions challenging affirmative actionTexts Mentioned:How We Got our Antiracist Constitution by Jesse MerriamBrown v. Board of EducationWe The PeopleThree Volume Trilogy by Bruce AckermanGovernment by Judiciary by Raoul BergerThe Warren Revolutionby L. Brent Bozell, Jr.“Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions” by Michael McConnell“The Originalist Case for Brown v. Board of Education” by Michael McConnell“The Original Intent—As Perceived by Michael McConnell” by Raoul BergerThomas Jefferson to Henri Gregoire, February 25, 1809Plessy v. Ferguson“The Affirmative Action Regime” by Jesse MerriamStudents for Fair Admission v. HarvardGrutter v. BollingerBecome a part of ISI:Become a MemberSupport ISIUpcoming ISI Events

Michael McConnell is a Stanford Law Professor who recently published a new book, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience. Get full access to What Happens Next in 6 Minutes with Larry Bernstein at www.whathappensnextin6minutes.com/subscribe

As our political and social landscapes polarize along party lines, religious liberty faces threats from both sides. From antidiscrimination commissions targeting conservative Christians to travel bans punishing Muslims, recent litigation has revealed the selective approach both left and right take when it comes to freedom of religion. But what if religious liberty is part of the cure for our political division?   Drawing on constitutional law, history, and sociology, our guest this week, Thomas C. Berg,  shows us how reaffirming religious freedom cultivates the good of individuals and society. After explaining the features of polarization and the societal benefits of diverse religious practices, Berg offers practical counsel on balancing religious freedom against other essential values.   Protecting Americans' ability to live according to their beliefs undergirds a healthy, pluralistic society—and this protection must extend to everyone, not just political allies. Lay readers and legal scholars who are weary of partisan quarreling will find Berg's case timely and compelling. Buy his book here:  https://a.co/d/hCVk4X2Guest Bio:Thomas Berg teaches constitutional law, religious liberty, intellectual property courses, and the religious liberty appellate clinic. In the clinic he supervises students in writing filing briefs in major religious liberty cases, drawing on his experience drafting nearly 60 briefs on issues of religious liberty and free speech in the Supreme Court and lower courts.Berg combines advocacy with scholarship as one of the nation's leading experts on religious liberty and law and religion. He is the author of six books, including a leading casebook, Religion and the Constitution (with Michael McConnell and Christopher Lund, Aspen Publishing), and The State and Religion in a Nutshell (West). He has written approximately 75 book chapters and journal articles and dozens of op-eds and shorter pieces on religious freedom, constitutional law, and the role of religion in law, politics and society. His work has been cited multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

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.

How did America's founders view religious liberty? And what does it mean today? Constitutional law experts 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.

On today's show, Michael McConnell discusses homeless in San Diego. SD Rescue Mission held a symposium with all Mayors to discuss working together to address homelessness. Later, Anthony Raimondi discusses Disney is going full Bud Light": Gender fluid Minnie Mouse apparel sparks outrage over Seann Altman collaboration. Also, Harrison Tinsley discusses his nightmare battle for his 3-Year-Old Son Mom Is Raising ‘Non-Binary'.

This week Steve sits down with the founders and management team from Uncle Waithley's Beverages; Karl Williams, Monica Freeman-Greene and Michael McConnell.

On today's show, Ilan Srulovicz discusses Trans Beauty contests and replacing girls & women. Later, Michael discusses how homelessness is top city in the US of homelessness in San Diego. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Ilan is back in the news for using his brand "EGARD" to take on the erasure of female athletes by brands Nike, Budweiser and others. The ad has been viewed millions of times across Twitter, Instagram, Youtube and TikTok receiving a tremendous response.  GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: James Gavin is an Author.  GUEST 3 OVERVIEW: Michael McConnell is a homeless Advocate in San Diego.

On todays show, Michael discusses how homelessness is top city in the US of homelessness in San Diego. Later, Dan and Ann Manassero discusses the farming effects of climate control and what is the agenda and Wyatt talks about how he is tasked with patrolling private property along the border and anyone he and his team encounter are told to go back over the river.  GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Michael McConnell is a homeless advocate in San Diego. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Dan And Ann are the owners of Manassero Farms. GUEST 3 OVERVIEW: Wyatt is a retired oil Pipeline worker who now works as a private hired hand for ranchers that own ranches along the border. 

As the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia in 1789, there was no experience, anywhere in the world, of a successful republican executive over an extensive nation — one with sufficient authority and independence to make things work on a national scale, but without the risk of becoming a monarch. This Jefferson Memorial Lecture shows how the delegates, and especially the Committee of Detail, went about constructing such an executive, and what it means for separation-of-powers law today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 38613]

As the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia in 1789, there was no experience, anywhere in the world, of a successful republican executive over an extensive nation — one with sufficient authority and independence to make things work on a national scale, but without the risk of becoming a monarch. This Jefferson Memorial Lecture shows how the delegates, and especially the Committee of Detail, went about constructing such an executive, and what it means for separation-of-powers law today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 38613]

The 2023 Supreme Court docket includes weighing the constitutionality of President Biden's student loan debt-forgiveness plan, state legislatures' roles in redistricting, and whether California can export woke business practices across state lines. Michael McConnell, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and Stanford Law School professor, explains why he took part in an amicus brief in the matter of loan forgiveness and what to expect from the conservative-majority court.  

Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and FutureWe talked to Rick Pildes (NYU Law) a few days after the Moore v. Harper oral argument, the “independent state legislature” case that instilled many worries about the Court opening a door to state legislatures overriding the popular vote. While those fears were unfounded (so to speak), this case raises other concerns that federal courts will get more intwined with elections and will block state courts from enforcing their constitutions, overturning impermissible gerrymanders, and providing remedies. In “Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and Future,” we talk about how this case is haunted not only by the 2020 election, a fake electors scheme based on the Electors Claus(e), and an insurrection; it is also haunted by ghost-of-election-past Bush v. Gore and the ghosts-of-election-future. We also ask, “Do You Hear What I Hear?” The left embracing Rehnquist's Bush v. Gore concurrence? Jed also observes a Festivus Airing of Grievances about conservatives' originalism errors and the Democrats' litigation strategy.  There was barely enough historical evidence to sustain one hour of oral argument, but the Court made it last for what felt like eight. We also talk to Rick about election law in an era of fragmentation(North Pole-arization?)Rick is the Sudler Family Professor at NYU Law School anda co-creator of the major casebook in this field, The Law of Democracy. He has served on President Biden appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. As a lawyer, Pildes has successfully argued voting-rights and election-law cases before the United States Supreme Court, and was part of the Emmy-nominated NBC breaking-news team for coverage of the 2000 Bush v. Gore contest. We discuss his recent articles and posts here:“The Age of Political Fragmentation,” Journal of Democracy (2021).“Election Law in an Age of Distrust,” Stanford Law Review Online (2022).Election Law Blog on Moore v. Harper here and here.We also discuss: Kate Shaw, Oral Argument in Moore v. Harper and the Perils of Finding “Compromise” on the Independent State Legislature Theory (Just Security)  Jed's twitter thread on Moore v. Harper and Democratic lawyers making problematic concessions here, relating to a proposed solution against remedies from Will Baude and former judge Michael McConnell here (the Atlantic).

What did the American Founders mean when they declared religious liberty to be an “inherent,” “natural” and “inalienable” right? Does the right to religious liberty provide religious exemptions from generally applicable laws? What is wrong with a state establishment of religion?In Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Vincent Phillip Muñoz addresses these questions and others, offering a novel interpretation of Founders' philosophy and constitutionalism of religious liberty. Drawing on early state constitutions, declarations of religious freedom, Founding-era debates, and the First Amendment's drafting record, the book documents and articulates the Founders' understanding of religious liberty as an inalienable natural right, uncovers what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, and constructs a natural rights jurisprudence of religious liberty, exploring and explaining how the Founders' principles would adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues. Contrary to what many might assume, Muñoz contends that adherence to the Founders would lead neither to consistently conservative nor consistently liberal results, but rather to a novel church-state jurisprudence that, in most cases, would return authority from the judiciary to the American people.Join us for a conversation of Professor Muñoz's new book, with Professor Muñoz himself and moderated by Michael McConnell, the director of Stanford Law School's Constitutional Law Center.Featuring:--Vincent Phillip Muñoz , Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School--Moderator: Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers v. Ross. The case is about a 2018 California ballot initiative, in which voters decided that the state should prohibit the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Opponents of the amendment argue that it violates dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today on We the People, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law join host Jeffrey Rosen discuss whether the Interstate Commerce Clause restricts states from regulating in-state conduct that has a substantial impact on mostly out-of-state producers. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at 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.

 Hon. Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General, discusses the FBI affidavit that justified the search on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.Former Federal Judge, and current Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, Michael McConnell discusses 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case that pits a Colorado state anti-discrimination law meant to protect same-sex couples against free speech rights.Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler    Producer: Sara Livezey See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Hon. Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General, discusses the FBI affidavit that justified the search on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.Former Federal Judge, and current Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, Michael McConnell discusses 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case that pits a Colorado state anti-discrimination law meant to protect same-sex couples against free speech rights.Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler    Producer: Sara Livezey See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While polls of Republican voters still show strong support for former president Trump, some of the most powerful testimony against him during the January 6 Congressional hearings have been by members of his administration and party. In this episode we hear from Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit nominated by President George W. Bush, about a new report he co-authored, Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, which examined every count of every case of election irregularities brought by Trump's team in six battleground states—and concluded that “Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.”

In decisions involving state funding for religious schools and prayer on a high school football field the conservative majority on the Supreme Court says it is defending religious liberty. But for some, that seems more like an attack. Linda Greenhouse and Michael McConnell join Kimberly Atkins Stohr.

On today's IGN The Fix: Games, The world's first Elden Ring no-hit run recorded by YouTube user Seki completed the game in 2 hours and 43 minutes and without taking a single point of damage. Elden Ring fans are constantly finding new ways to play Elden Ring with some having found some pretty bizarre secrets such as a pair of fancy underwear and a hidden wall that only opens after 50 hits. Even the recent patch update has not stifled Elden Ring Speedrun as the fastest time now is 18 minutes and 58 seconds as of March 28th. Return to Monkey Island is a sequel to the legendary point 'n' click series, coming in 2022 from original writer-director Ron Gilbert. Return to Monkey Island brings back original co-writer Dave Grossman, and LucasArts composers Michael Land, Michael McConnell, and Clint Bajakian. Fans of The Secret of Monkey Island, Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge and Escape from Monkey Island are sure to be excited for the sequel coming in 2022.

Last week the Supreme Court handed down two nearly unanimous decisions in cases involving the First Amendment. One was an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in Ramirez v. Collier, in which the Court sided with a death row inmate who claimed he had the right to have the religious leader of his choice touch him and pray audibly for him in the execution chamber. The other opinion was 9-0 in Houston Community College v. Wilson, where the Court held that a legislative censure issued by a community college board did not violate the free speech rights of the respondent, another trustee on the board, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. First Amendment experts Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the opinions' impact on how we interpret and understand religious freedom and freedom of speech in America. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at 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.

Last week the Supreme Court handed down two nearly unanimous decisions in cases involving the First Amendment. One was an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in Ramirez v. Collier, in which the Court sided with a death row inmate who claimed he had the right to have the religious leader of his choice touch him and pray audibly for him in the execution chamber. The other opinion was 9-0 in Houston Community College v. Wilson, where the Court held that a legislative censure issued by a community college board did not violate the free speech rights of the respondent, another trustee on the board, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. First Amendment experts Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the opinions' impact on how we interpret and understand religious freedom and freedom of speech in America. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at 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.

This episode features two segments focusing on the decision by the Facebook Oversight Board on Donald Trump's account. First we hear a panel discussion hosted by Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and moderated by Stanford Law professor Nathaniel Persily. The panel features two members of the Facebook Oversight board- Michael McConnell, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and Julie Owono, an international human rights lawyer. The others on the panel include Marietje Schaake, international director of policy at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and international policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence who previously served as a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands; Renee DiResta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory; Alex Stamos, director of the Observatory, a professor at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, and former chief security officer at Facebook; and Daphne Keller, who directs the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center.  Then, we hear reactions to the Oversight Board from Erin Shields, a National Field Organizer at MediaJustice, a grassroots movement for a more just and participatory media that fights for racial, economic, and gender justice in a digital age; and Katy Glenn Bass, the Research Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.