Podcasts about Originalism

The big opinions are starting to drop, and we're doing our best to keep pace. We first discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which concerns religious liberty, the scope of Congress's power to create remedies against individuals under the Spending Clause, and whether there's any redress if government officials literally throw your rights into a trash can. We then turn to United States v. Hemani, where the Court found that a federal law barring gun possession by unlawful drug users violated the Second Amendment and revealed that some of the Justices are surprisingly open-minded about marijuana's role in American society. Key Topics[00:07:07] - Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections[00:08:02] - The facts of Landor's case and the prison's decision to ignore prior religious-hair protections[00:10:52] - RFRA, RLUIPA, and the path from Employment Division v. Smith to modern religious-liberty litigation[00:14:54] - The Spending Clause theory behind federal funding conditions and why the remedy question matters[00:19:54] - The majority's reasoning: why money-damages suits against officials were held unconstitutional here[00:21:33] - Sabri, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the debate over third-party liability[00:26:04] - The parade of horribles: transgender sports, vaccines, and other funding-condition hypotheticals[00:33:03] - The constitutional background: “general welfare,” the spending clause, and the comma-versus-semicolon debate[00:38:49] - Why the Court granted the case and whether the facts pushed the legal outcome[00:42:13] - Hemani and the federal statute banning gun possession by unlawful drug users[00:44:05] - Historical analogies, habitual drunkards, and how Bruen and Rahimi are functioning together[00:47:17] - Discussion of the Court's analogical method and its practical limits in lower courts[00:54:26] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on jurisdictional hooks after Lopez[00:55:31] - Justice Jackson's concurrence on Bruen and Justice Alito's surprising marijuana comparison[00:57:51] - The real-world use of marijuana versus alcohol at the founding, and why the analogy is controversialRelevant LinksDivided Argument: https://www.dividedargument.com/Podcast merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/Podcast commentary and blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/RLUIPA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rluipaRFRA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religious_freedom_restoration_actDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/554/570New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/597/1United States v. Rahimi (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/602/230South Dakota v. Dole (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/203Sabri v. United States (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/541/600

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Ilan Wurman, law professor at University of Minnesota Law School and host of the podcast Rationally Based, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the common law tradition of birthright citizenship, the constitutional separation of powers, and the originalist versus "living constitution" debate in the buildup to America's semiquincentennial. You can find Wurman's new book, The Constitution of 1789, here. The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

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.

Across the country, judges and justices are making decisions that reach back, sometimes centuries, to define what the Constitution means today. Whether it's gun rights, abortion, or voting laws, the Supreme Court increasingly relies on what it calls history and tradition to interpret the nation's founding documents. But what history, exactly? How reliable is it as a guide for a democracy in the 21st century? And should five justices—the least required for a majority decision—have the power to strike down laws passed by hundreds of legislators, elected by millions of citizens? Explore these questions and what they reveal about the court, originalism, and the future of American democracy with Nikolas Bowie, PhD '18, the Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School (HLS), a historian of democracy, and a thought leader on how power really works in our constitutional system. His new book with his fellow author Daphna Renan, also an HLS professor, is called Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People.

Corporations are people in the eyes of the law. But how did that happen, and why does it hand them rights you don't have?  UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, author of "We the Corporations", traces a 200-year campaign by business to win the constitutional rights of human beings. Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales press him on what Zingales calls an incredible trick. Corporations insist they're separate from their owners when that shields owners from blame, then argue they're like people when they want to spend on elections or dodge a rule.  Winkler traces how the Fourteenth Amendment, written after the Civil War to protect the newly freed, became a tool for railroads and banks instead. He even describes a lawyer who, by his account, lied to the Supreme Court, producing a journal he claimed proved the amendment was meant for corporations.  Zingales pushes on what comes next: could AI itself qualify for legal personhood, and would that shield big tech from blame? When we ask Winkler for a shred of hope that the long arc doesn't simply keep favoring business, the answer is far shorter and blunter than expected.  Connect with us:

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” 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

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito […]

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Supreme Court of the United States Justice Neil Gorsuch was the first of President Donald Trump's three nominees to be confirmed to the highest court in the land. As of today, he has been there for nine years and has already been a part of several rulings that could change the course of America's future. But as the USA prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, Justice Gorsuch is looking back. In a new children's book he co-authored with Janie Nitze, he is trying to help kids understand the people who helped form our country and how they shaped the world we live in today. “Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence" highlights our history through the thoughts and actions of ordinary people who did extraordinary things. Justice Neil Gorsuch recently joined Fox News Rundown host Gurnal Scott to discuss the book and America's 250th birthday. He discussed some of the people in American history that not only kids but also their parents may not know about, and why learning about America's past should give us confidence that our country can overcome today's challenges. Justice Gorsuch also discussed his day job a bit and what he believes his responsibility is on the Supreme Court. We often have to cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on the Fox News Rundown Extra, we share our entire interview with Justice Gorsuch and let you hear more from someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Supreme Court of the United States Justice Neil Gorsuch was the first of President Donald Trump's three nominees to be confirmed to the highest court in the land. As of today, he has been there for nine years and has already been a part of several rulings that could change the course of America's future. But as the USA prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, Justice Gorsuch is looking back. In a new children's book he co-authored with Janie Nitze, he is trying to help kids understand the people who helped form our country and how they shaped the world we live in today. “Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence" highlights our history through the thoughts and actions of ordinary people who did extraordinary things. Justice Neil Gorsuch recently joined Fox News Rundown host Gurnal Scott to discuss the book and America's 250th birthday. He discussed some of the people in American history that not only kids but also their parents may not know about, and why learning about America's past should give us confidence that our country can overcome today's challenges. Justice Gorsuch also discussed his day job a bit and what he believes his responsibility is on the Supreme Court. We often have to cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on the Fox News Rundown Extra, we share our entire interview with Justice Gorsuch and let you hear more from someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Supreme Court of the United States Justice Neil Gorsuch was the first of President Donald Trump's three nominees to be confirmed to the highest court in the land. As of today, he has been there for nine years and has already been a part of several rulings that could change the course of America's future. But as the USA prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, Justice Gorsuch is looking back. In a new children's book he co-authored with Janie Nitze, he is trying to help kids understand the people who helped form our country and how they shaped the world we live in today. “Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence" highlights our history through the thoughts and actions of ordinary people who did extraordinary things. Justice Neil Gorsuch recently joined Fox News Rundown host Gurnal Scott to discuss the book and America's 250th birthday. He discussed some of the people in American history that not only kids but also their parents may not know about, and why learning about America's past should give us confidence that our country can overcome today's challenges. Justice Gorsuch also discussed his day job a bit and what he believes his responsibility is on the Supreme Court. We often have to cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on the Fox News Rundown Extra, we share our entire interview with Justice Gorsuch and let you hear more from someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Originalism has quickly become the leading approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, drawing from the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and others over the past three decades. But what place does originalism have in the states? State constitutions often contain unique provisions that have no federal analogue. Take Alaska's unique constitutional provision empowering grand juries to investigate matters of public welfare and safety and to issue reports. This power falls outside the traditional role grand juries play and raises interesting questions. Recent scholarship published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explores the text, history, and tradition behind this provision, offering a window into how originalism might operate differently at the state level. What lessons can be drawn about the similarities between originalist interpretation of state constitutions and the federal constitution? Does originalism look different from state to state and between state and federal governments? How might judges and scholars take up the originalist mantle and shed light on other underexplored state constitutional provisions? Join our panel of experts as they explore how originalism is playing out in the states. Featuring:Dr. Nicholas Cole, Senior Research Fellow, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; Director, the Quill ProjectHon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, AlaskaProf. Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolSavannah Shoffner, J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Hon. John D. Couriel, Justice, Florida Supreme Court(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

The Voting Rights Act, or VRA, is viewed as the most important piece of legislation advancing civil rights in the 1960s. Passed in 1965, it was intended to redress the dis-empowerment of African Americans whose voting rights had been restricted due to several states legislation, ranging from poll taxes to literacy tests and other restrictions on voting. Throughout the Roberts Court, the VRA has been restricted and its protections stripped away. In 2026, perhaps the last of these provisions have been overturned, in a decision in the case Louisiana v Callais. On todays show, we will explore this decision and the impact it has on drawing Congressional districts, in an era of particularly aggressive gerrymandering. [ dur: 58mins. ] Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law and the Executive Director of Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy at Georgia State University. He is the author of Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges. Seth C. McKee is a Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University. He is the author of The Dynamics of Southern Politics: Causes and Consequences and coauthor of Rural Republican Realignment in the Modern South: The Untold Story with MV Hood. Christian Grose is a Professor of Political Science & Public Policy and the Academic Director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy at the University of Southern California. He is the author of Independent Redistricting Commissions Increase Voter Perceptions of Fairness and co-author of Local Election Administrators in the United States: The Frontline of Democracy. This program is produced by Doug Becker, Ankine Aghassian, Maria Armoudian, Anna Lapin and Sudd Dongre. Politics and Activism, Elections, Redistricting, Voting Rights, Congress, Courts, Democrats, Republicans

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court By: Sarah Isgur Published: 2026 416 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? A deep dive into the Roberts Court, with a historical framing of the Court as a whole. Two main themes run through the book.  First, while people want to evaluate the Court on the single axis of liberal vs. conservative, there is a second, perhaps more important axis that tracks the institutionalism of the justices—respect for precedent, maintaining the legitimacy of the Court, congressional deference, etc. Once you consider both axes, rather than a 6–3, Republican vs. Democratic Court, you get a 3–3–3 Court. Composed of (in Isgur's words): 1- The Deciders: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett 2- The Conservative Honey Badgers: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch 3- The Lonely Liberals: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson Second, there's the idea of the Supreme Court as the Last Branch Standing, by which she means that it's the only branch of government that would be recognizable to the Founders. Which also means it's the one branch of government trying to hold a constitutional line. This is not a comment on Originalism or Textualism, this is a comment on the fact that the executive Branch has accumulated an enormous amount of power, while, conversely, the legislative branch does barely any legislation. As a consequence, much of what the Court does is designed as subtle encouragement for Congress to take back some of its power. What authorial biases should I be aware of?

On this episode of The Tudor Dixon Podcast, Tudor sits down with bestselling author, Federalist editor-in-chief, and Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway to discuss her new book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution. Mollie takes listeners behind the scenes of the Supreme Court, revealing the personal story of Justice Samuel Alito, the constitutional principles behind the Dobbs decision, the political pressure facing the Court, and how redistricting battles could reshape the 2026 midterms. Plus, a candid conversation on media bias, political violence, and the future of constitutional originalism.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Allegations of Qatar’s Influence Campaign in the U.S. Qatar spends billions of dollars funding U.S. universities to influence American public opinion and academic culture. Qatar hires Washington, D.C.–based PR and lobbying firms to “whitewash” its image, particularly regarding claims of support for extremist groups. Qatar’s status is the largest foreign funder of U.S. universities, surpassing countries like China, and suggests this funding correlates with campus political activism. Specific universities (e.g., Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon) are highlighted as major recipients of foreign funds. Financial relationships will limit criticism of foreign governments, citing an example of a U.S. university campus in Qatar allegedly restricting speech about the Qatari regime. 2. Clarence Thomas’s Judicial Philosophy Thomas is emphasizing: Judicial restraint and discipline Originalism and adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning The belief that rights come from God, not government, grounded in the Declaration of Independence His personal background (raised by his grandfather, strict discipline, plainspoken style) is presented as shaping his judicial approach. Thomas’s views with progressivism, which characterizes asserting that rights derive from government authority rather than natural or divine sources. A Senate hearing anecdote is used to illustrate this ideological divide, portraying progressive views as mainstream within the modern Democratic Party. 3. Free Speech Conflicts on College Campuses At UCLA Law School, protesters disrupted a talk by a Department of Homeland Security lawyer. The disruption is a “heckler’s veto,” preventing speech rather than expressing dissent. Similar past incidents at Stanford Law School are cited to argue that some law students’ conduct is incompatible with professional legal standards. University administrations are failing to protect speech and enforce order during such events. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Purpose of the Book The book aims to: Tell Clarence Thomas’s personal life story, especially his rise from extreme poverty. Explain his judicial philosophy and jurisprudence in plain, accessible language. It is based on approximately 9.5 hours of exclusive, one‑on‑one interviews between Ted Cruz and Justice Thomas. Cruz emphasizes that the book is written for non‑lawyers, including students and general readers. 2. Clarence Thomas’s Background and Life Journey Grew up in severe poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, raised primarily by his grandfather. Initially spoke a Gullah/Geechee dialect, not English. Experienced racism, hardship, family conflict, and personal struggles, including anger and a period of heavy drinking. Attended seminary with the intention of becoming a Catholic priest, later leaving due to disillusionment. Educated at Holy Cross College and Yale Law School. Underwent a major ideological transformation, moving from left‑wing Black Power activism to conservative principles over many years. 3. Professional Rise and Historic Achievements Faced career obstacles due to perceptions surrounding affirmative action. Worked under Republican Senator John Danforth, which became a turning point. Served in: The Reagan administration The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Appointed in 1991 as the second Black Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. On track to become the longest‑serving Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (by 2028). 4. Judicial Philosophy (“Going Further”) Thomas’s jurisprudence emphasizes: Originalism and the original meaning of the Constitution The belief that rights come from God/nature, not government A color‑blind Constitution Judicial restraint: judges should interpret and apply law, not create policy His opinions are intentionally plain‑spoken and accessible, reflecting his background and respect for ordinary citizens. The title Going Further reflects his tendency to push legal reasoning to its foundational principles rather than incremental change. 5. Confirmation Hearings and Public Attacks The book examines the 1991 confirmation hearings, including: Allegations by Anita Hill Intense political and media attacks Cruz draws parallels between Thomas’s hearings and later Supreme Court confirmations (e.g., Brett Kavanaugh). Thomas is portrayed as enduring racialized hostility and vilification because of his conservative views. 6. Legacy and Moral Example Clarence Thomas is presented as: A model of personal resilience, discipline, and principle Someone who maintained convictions despite decades of criticism Cruz argues Thomas would be widely celebrated if he were liberal, but instead has been marginalized. The book frames Thomas as a role model for principled living, not just for lawyers but for all Americans. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans?  In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court. The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins.  The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government's current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more. Links: Gregory Ablavsky >>> Stanford Law page Federal Ground: Governing Property and Violence in the First U.S. Territories >>> Stanford Law 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 (00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth? (00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment  (00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" (00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court (00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency (00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American (00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court hears arguments on President Trump's effort to challenge birthright citizenship, and early signals suggest skepticism from several justices. Todd Huff breaks down what's really at stake, focusing on the 14th Amendment's “subject to the jurisdiction” clause and whether it applies to children of illegal immigrants. Is this a long-overdue correction—or a constitutional overreach? Todd explores the legal arguments, historical context, and common-sense implications of the case, while highlighting how this issue connects to broader immigration policy and national sovereignty. If you want clarity on one of the most important constitutional debates happening today, this is a must-listen episode.

The Supreme Court hears arguments on President Trump's effort to challenge birthright citizenship, and early signals suggest skepticism from several justices. Todd Huff breaks down what's really at stake, focusing on the 14th Amendment's “subject to the jurisdiction” clause and whether it applies to children of illegal immigrants. Is this a long-overdue correction—or a constitutional overreach? Todd explores the legal arguments, historical context, and common-sense implications of the case, while highlighting how this issue connects to broader immigration policy and national sovereignty. If you want clarity on one of the most important constitutional debates happening today, this is a must-listen episode.

This is the eighth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution. This month, Roman and Elizabeth discuss Article V, which lays out the process to amend the Constitution. Then, Jill Lepore lays out her thesis that the Constitution is truly meant to be amended, explains why Article V amendments have become functionally impossible, and tells some fascinating stories about the people who have championed amendments. The 99% Invisible Breakdown of the Constitution Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Veteran journalist James Rosen, who just released the second in his trilogy biography series of Justice Antonin Scalia, joined Court Watch host Alex Swoyer to discuss Scalia's arrival at the Supreme Court, who was greeted with disgust by fellow Justice Harry Blackmun. 

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, James Rosen, chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax and author of Scalia: Supreme Court Years 1986-2001, joins Federalist Staff Writer Shawn Fleetwood to discuss how Justice Antonin Scalia's time on the Supreme Court reoriented the nation towards originalism and fundamentally transformed the high bench forever.You can find Rosen's book here: https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/scalia-supreme-court-years-1986-to-2001-9781510786912/newThe Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

Welcome back! We're kicking off our sixth season of Sidebar by dissecting imaginary legal codes of fiction to uncover truths about our real-world search for fairness. From the ethical dilemmas of "How to Get Away with Murder" and "Better Call Saul" to the lawless world of Harry Potter, where a lack of attorneys often leaves characters in peril, we examine how pop culture shapes our understanding of justice. The surprising top dog in fantasy law? "Star Trek," with its prophetic examinations of AI and ownership. Should rights be reserved for biological life alone? Does the Prime Directive offer a universal model for human rights?We also dive into the connection between fanfiction tinhatting and Supreme Court originalism, exploring why interpreting 18th-century intent is not so different from fans extrapolating the secret lives of Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson.Join us as we learn why 90% of Harry Potter's problems could have been solved with a lawyer.[Editor's note: He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is indeed named, numerous times, within. Proceed with caution!]Special guests:Lenora Ledwon, professor of law at St. Thomas UniversityStacey Lantagne, professor of law at Suffolk UniversityKiersten Marcil, attorney and author of The Enlightened sagaFabrice Defferrard, professor of law at the University of ReimsThis episode was produced by Kirk McDaniel. Intro music by The Dead Pens. Editorial staff is Ryan Abbott, Sean Duffy and Jamie Ross.

Groundhog Day brings a lighthearted start, but today's conversation quickly turns serious as we examine why the courts matter more than ever. With rulings on election integrity and federal immigration enforcement making headlines, this episode breaks down how the judicial branch is shaping the future of the country. We look closely at the role of the Supreme Court, the importance of constitutional originalism, and why justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch matter in the fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If we want to remain a nation governed by laws—not political agendas—understanding how the courts are supposed to function is essential. This episode connects the dots between culture, elections, and the Constitution itself.

Groundhog Day brings a lighthearted start, but today's conversation quickly turns serious as we examine why the courts matter more than ever. With rulings on election integrity and federal immigration enforcement making headlines, this episode breaks down how the judicial branch is shaping the future of the country. We look closely at the role of the Supreme Court, the importance of constitutional originalism, and why justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch matter in the fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If we want to remain a nation governed by laws—not political agendas—understanding how the courts are supposed to function is essential. This episode connects the dots between culture, elections, and the Constitution itself.

The United States is at a tipping point, as the anti-truth movement attempts to erase the history of pivotal moments that advanced racial justice. Related to this movement, the legal theory of originalism falls short of a truthful retelling of history and therefore threatens America's cultural memory. This episode of unpacks originalism and how it has helped fuel recent efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and is a cornerstone of U.S. democracy. Episode guests also discuss progressive originalism, a theory that can help bring the nation closer to a truthful account of history and democratic renewal.Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Morenike Fajana: Senior Counsel, Legal Defense Fund - Mark Joseph Stern: Senior Writer, Slate, and Co-Host, Amicus podcastThis epsiode was written and produced by Jakiyah Bradley. Resonate Recordings provided production support.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.

All we want for Christmas is a new Supreme Court. Here to tell us how we get there is legal scholar Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back. What's "originalism"? It's white supremacy's answer to the Civil Rights Movement, every bit as sneaky and immoral as Republican operative Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy," which mobilized racist voters through racist dog whistles instead of open slurs. Originalism sounds fancy by design, but it's pure fascist gaslighting, now wielded by the trash MAGA majority on the Supreme Court. Gaslit Nation's holiday gift to our listeners this year is to remind you of an inconvenient fact the media ignores: Donald Trump came to power in 2016 with the Kremlin's very illegal help, as documented in both the Mueller Report and the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election. That makes him an illegitimate president, which means his extreme Supreme Court picks should be impeached. More on that in part two of our discussion, coming Thursday. Thank you to everyone who joined our holiday party on Monday. As requested, the link to the Outreach Committee for listeners interested in discussing ways to reach current or former MAGA cult members and help guide them back toward the light is available in the show notes on Patreon. Join our community of listeners and get bonus shows, Q&A sessions, invites to exclusive events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, ad free listening, group chats with other listeners, ways to shape the show, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!

When a single federal judge can freeze a president's policy nationwide, it raises big questions about checks and balances and democratic accountability. That's one reason nationwide injunctions have become central to some of today's most consequential legal battles—and why the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA matters.At a live recording, Stanford Legal host Diego Zambrano sat down with Professor Mila Sohoni, one of the country's leading scholars on federal courts and administrative law, for a conversation that moved from President Trump's day-one birthright-citizenship order to the Court's ruling in CASA, including how lower courts are now navigating the decision's new, but murky, constraints on nationwide injunctions.Sohoni breaks the protection these injunctions can offer when sweeping executive actions threaten millions, the risks of empowering individual judges to halt national policy, and the incentives for strategic forum shopping in a polarized era. She also explains how CASA reins in—but doesn't eliminate—the nationwide injunction, leaving room for broad relief through class actions, universal vacatur, and “complete relief” findings. The discussion sheds light on how the legal landscape is shifting after CASA, and why nationwide injunctions continue to shape major clashes between the courts and the executive branch.Links:Mila Sohoni >>> Stanford Law page“The Puzzle of Procedural Originalism” >>>  Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Scope of Nationwide Injunctions(00:12:01) Epistemic and Democratic Arguments Against Nationwide Injunctions(00:28:54) The CASA Decision(00:29:37) Legal Basis and Impact of Executive Orders(00:38:20) Conclusion and Audience Questions Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

【聊了什么】 特朗普总统的第二任期已经过去了一年，在这一年之中，美国政治是一如既往的精彩。特别是特朗普本人，不管是在内政还是外交上，都以一种不可置疑的方式，不停地发出各种指令，改变着美国。更重要的是这一系列的操作似乎并没有受到太大的阻力。如今他看起来并不是民选国家的领导人，更像是一个专制独裁国家的君主，不受到任何的约束。 为什么会出现这样的情况？这是只会发生在特朗普身上的个例，还是背后有着更深层次的原因。为什么美国总统们的权力会越来越大，民主党和共和党对于总统制的理解有何不同。为什么对于特朗普的反制措施都没有取得效果。本期节目，我们从小阿瑟•M.施莱辛格《帝王总统》出发，来试图给这一系列的问题作出解答。 本期节目为talich在《以读攻读》的串台，欢迎在各平台关注《以读攻读》。 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 04:39 今天有多少美国人觉得特朗普的权力过大了 05:59 美国国父们设计总统制的初衷 09:37 总统制与当时其他国家领袖制度的对比 13:14 美国制宪会议上如何划分总统的权力 19:03 美国总统为什么想要扩张自己的权力 22:20 为什么外交领域成为了总统扩权的突破口 26:54 20世纪，美国成为行政国家的过程 33:18 行政国家的形成为什么给了总统更大的权力 37:32 总统竞选模式的改变导致了总统候选人有了更大的话语权 42:08 罗斯福和尼克松是如何扩张总统的权力 54:15 总统如何通过任命政务官加强自己权力 58:12 美国各界对于总统扩权的态度 1:01:05 Loper 案推翻 Chevron Deference 1:02:00 政治科学家对于总统权力的看法 1:11:45 70年代开始，共和党开始推行的“单一行政权理论” 1:16:33 法律上的原教旨主义如何支持“单一行政权理论” 1:30:19 美国政治中的总统周期理论 1:36:36 特朗普政府如何通过实践扩大自己的权力（针对法院的策略等） 1:40:05 “帝王总统制”的未来走向 1:51:01 选民认知对未来美国政治走势的影响 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Talich：美国政治和文化历史爱好者 《以读攻读》主播： 黄哲成：《现代主义文学百年》《深焦 DeepFocus Radio》《以读攻读》主播 【 What We Talked About】 It has been one year since the start of President Trump's second term, and American politics has been as dramatic as ever. Trump himself, in particular, has been reshaping the United States—both domestically and internationally—by issuing directives with an air of absolute authority. More importantly, these actions seem to have met with little significant resistance. Today, he appears less like the leader of a democracy and more like the monarch of an autocratic regime, operating without restraint. Why is this happening? Is this a phenomenon unique to Trump, or are there deeper underlying causes? Why has the power of the U.S. presidency continued to expand? How do Democrats and Republicans differ in their understanding of the presidential system? And why have all attempts to check Trump's power failed to result in any change? In this episode, taking Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s The Imperial Presidency as our starting point, we attempt to answer these questions. Note: This is a crossover episode featuring talich on Yi Du Gong Du. Please follow "Yi Du Gong Du" on your favorite podcast platforms. 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 04:39 How many Americans today believe Trump has too much power? 05:59 The Founding Fathers' original intent in designing the presidency. 09:37 Comparing the presidency to other leadership systems of that era. 13:14 How presidential powers were defined at the Constitutional Convention. 19:03 Why U.S. presidents seek to expand their power. 22:20 Why foreign policy became the gateway for expanding presidential authority. 26:54 The 20th Century: The process of America becoming an "Administrative State." 33:18 Why the rise of the Administrative State empowered the presidency. 37:32 How changes in campaigning increased the influence of presidential candidates. 42:08 How Roosevelt and Nixon expanded presidential power. 54:15 Strengthening power through political appointments. 58:12 Reactions across various sectors to the expansion of executive power. 1:01:05 Loper Bright and the overturning of Chevron deference. 1:02:00 Political scientists' views on presidential power. 1:11:45 The "Unitary Executive Theory" pushed by the Republican Party since the 1970s. 1:16:33 How legal Originalism supports the "Unitary Executive Theory." 1:30:19 The theory of presidential cycles in American politics. 1:36:36 How the Trump administration expanded power through practice (strategies against the courts, etc.). 1:40:05 The future trajectory of the "Imperial Presidency." 1:51:01 The impact of voter perception on the future of U.S. politics. 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Talich：Aficionado of American politics, culture, and history Host of Yi Du Gong Du: Huang Zhecheng: An interesting but useless person, doing interesting but useless things. (Douban: @hzcneo)

Send Wilk a text with your feedback!Episode 291 – Featuring Joni Bryan of The 917 SocietyIn this episode, Wilk sits down with Joni Bryan, Founder & Executive Director of The 917 Society, an organization dedicated to inspiring the next generation with a personal connection to the U.S. Constitution.Joni shares how a simple question — “Have you ever read the Constitution?” — evolved into a nationwide effort to provide every 8th-grade student with a free pocket Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in honor of Constitution Day.Topics include:Why constitutional literacy is decliningOriginalism vs. modern interpretationsLimited government and the balance between federal and state powerThe role of bureaucracy in shaping today's political dividesPushback The 917 Society receives — and whyThe importance of the Constitution for all Americans, regardless of political beliefsThe 2026 goal: 2.5 million pocket Constitutions for America's 250th anniversaryLearn more about Joni & The 917 Society in the full show notes for this episode at DerateTheHate.com or visiting 917society.org.The world is a better place if we are better people. That begins with each of us as individuals. Be kind to one another. Be grateful for all you've got. Make every day the day that you want it to be! Please follow The Derate The Hate podcast on: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter(X) , YouTube Subscribe to us wherever you enjoy your audio or from our site. Please leave us a rating and feedback on Apple podcasts or other platforms. You can share your thoughts or request Wilk for a speaking engagement on our contact page: DerateTheHate.com/Contact The Derate The Hate podcast is proudly produced in collaboration with Braver Angels — America's largest grassroots, cross-partisan organization working toward civic renewal and bridging partisan divides. Learn more: BraverAngels.org Welcome to the Derate The Hate Podcast! *The views expressed by Wilk, his guest hosts &/or guests on the Derate The Hate podcast are their own and should not be attributed to any organization they may otherwise be affiliated with.

Jill Lapore thinks "originalism" killed the Constitution. Wrong. Only it can save the Constitution.https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

The long-awaited originalism debate is finally here! Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein and John Yoo argue the meaning and limits of originalism, how constitutional text should be interpreted, whether long-standing practices can override original meaning, and where modern doctrines—from Article I courts to immigration policy—fit within the founding framework. It's a spirited, clear, and tightly argued conversation about how the Constitution should function today.

The long-awaited originalism debate is finally here! Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein and John Yoo argue the meaning and limits of originalism, how constitutional text should be interpreted, whether long-standing practices can override original meaning, and where modern doctrines—from Article I courts to immigration policy—fit within the founding framework. It's a spirited, clear, and tightly argued conversation about how the Constitution should function today.

Cam examines Notre Dame Law professor Haley Proctor's latest column pondering what James Madison would have thought about AR-15s, and details a defensive gun use out of Texas involving a stalker ex-boyfriend.

Cam examines Notre Dame Law professor Haley Proctor's latest column pondering what James Madison would have thought about AR-15s, and details a defensive gun use out of Texas involving a stalker ex-boyfriend.

Liz and Andrew talk to Professor Eric Segall of Georgia state University College of Lawl. He teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II, and is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. How can one teach ConLaw when the Supreme Court is burning down precedent? We'll find out!   Links:   How the Hell To Teach Constitutional Law in 2025: Twenty Questions and No Answers https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/08/how-hell-to-teach-constitutional-law-in.html   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the Supreme Court's latest move: taking up a case before the lower courts have even finished with it. What does that mean, and why now?They also dig into three big rulings from the 11th, 5th, and D.C. Circuits that could have a major impact going forward.The Agenda:—Federal Trade Commission firings—Is Humphrey's dead?—‘Dorm room Originalism'—Originalism and the Constitution—Healthcare covered sex-change surgeries—Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act—Predatory incursion vs. invasionShow Notes:—How Originalism Killed the ConstitutionAdvisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Originalism is often countered by the idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing document meant to be interpreted and changed along with the times. Jill Lepore is a historian at Harvard University and author of the new book, “We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution.” Geoff Bennett sat down with Lepore for our series, On Democracy. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Sarah Isgur and David French invite Richard Primus, author of The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power, to discuss his unorthodox argument that the constitutional system does place limits on Congress, but those limits don't actually come from the enumeration of powers—and never have. But first: a grab bag of legal cases and responding to Attorney General Pam Bondi's very anti-conservative remarks. The Agenda:—Will hate speech be prosecuted?—Partisan divides on the interim docket—Listener insights on delegated powers—Elite law schools and Rehnquist v. Souter clerk hiring—Granting mootness on a SCOTUS case—The oldest constitutional question—Originalism and the 10th Amendment Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Unity is acting together even when we don't think alike. And one of the primary aims of the American Constitution is to support a democracy of those unified in diversity. Yuval Levin joins Mark Labberton to explore the precarious state of American constitutional life and the imbalance of power between the branches of the U.S. government. Drawing from his book America's Covenant, Levin argues that the Founders designed the Constitution above all to preserve unity in a divided society. Yet today, he warns, the imbalance of power—particularly the weakness of Congress and the rise of presidential authority—threatens democratic legitimacy. In this conversation, Levin reflects on originalism, the courts, Donald Trump's expanding influence, and the dangers of both passivity and autocracy. With clarity and urgency, he calls for renewed civic engagement and for Congress to reclaim its central role. Episode Highlights “Unity doesn't mean thinking alike. Unity means acting together. And the question for a modern political society is how do we act together when we don't think alike?” “The biggest problem we have is that Congress is under-active, radically under-active and has turned itself into a spectator.” “The president is in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government.” “I am very concerned about this kind of Caesar-ism. I think it is very dangerous.” “What we're seeing is constitutional creep, where the president is pushing and nobody's pushing back, and only Congress can do it.” “I worry a lot about Donald Trump. But the reason I worry is because Congress isn't doing its job.” “The politics of an autocratic state is a politics of spectators, and we just cannot become spectators.” “All of us will find ourselves in the minority sooner or later.” Helpful Links and Resources America's Covenant: The Constitution and the Path to National Unity, by Yuval Levin American Enterprise Institute (Find Yuval Levin's current research and publications) *New York Times Opinion* – Yuval Levin's columns at the New York Times About Yuval Levin Yuval Levin is director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy. He is the founder and editor of National Affairs, senior editor of The New Atlantis, a contributing editor at National Review, and a contributing opinion writer at The New York Times. He is the author of several books on political theory and public policy, most recently American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (Basic Books, 2024), which examines the U.S. Constitution through the lens of national unity in a divided society. Show Notes Constitutional unity and division Yuval Levin summarizes America's Covenant as a reintroduction to the Constitution framed around the challenge of unity in diversity. “Unity doesn't mean thinking alike. Unity means acting together.” The Constitution prioritizes bargaining, negotiation, and legitimacy over efficiency. Congress was designed as the “first branch” of government to embody pluralism and force compromise. The decline of Congress and rise of the presidency Levin argues Congress is radically under-active, ceding ground to presidents and courts. “The biggest problem we have is that Congress is under-active, radically under-active and has turned itself into a spectator.” Excessive focus on the presidency erodes democratic legitimacy. Current frustrations stem from misunderstanding the system's design: it resists narrow majorities and forces broad coalitions. Courts, originalism, and the unitary executive Levin affirms he is an originalist: “a philosophy of judicial interpretation … a mode of self-restraint for judges.” Supreme Court decisions in recent years repeatedly signal: “Congress, do your job.” He outlines the unitary executive theory: the president controls the executive branch, but not the government as a whole. “The president is in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government.” Trump's expanding power Levin warns of the growing push to centralize authority in the presidency. “I am very concerned about this kind of Caesar-ism. I think it is very dangerous.” Trump's second term differs because restraints have vanished; his circle now encourages unrestrained executive action. Disruption of long-held norms has weakened trust in American institutions globally and domestically. Constitutional crisis vs. constitutional creep Levin distinguishes between “creep,” “conflict,” and “crisis.” He argues the U.S. is experiencing constitutional creep: unchecked executive power without Congress pushing back. True crisis would involve direct defiance of the courts—something still possible but not yet realized. The role of citizens and civic responsibility Levin stresses the danger of passivity: “The politics of an autocratic state is a politics of spectators, and we just cannot become spectators.” Citizens should keep writing to Congress, vote with clear expectations, and engage in local governance. State legislatures, though less visible, often function better than Congress today. Clear thinking itself, Levin suggests, is a moral act for a healthy republic. Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.  

Former educator turned lawyer Ryan Mullally joined me today for a discussion about Tim Kaine's recent comments on natural law, the argument against an American ethnostate, why Originalism is the best method of Constitutional interpretation, Trump's flaws, states' rights, and more. I couldn't have asked for a better way to inaugurate The Brian Eskow Show.

The official history of America's founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The official history of America's founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Continuing our long slog through the end-of-Term opinion dump, it's fraud day! We dig into Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States, two interesting federal criminal law puzzles. 

The official history of America's founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by William Baude, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to discuss the scandalizing origins of originalism. But first, a recap of SCOTUS cases. The Agenda:—Narrowing the Fourth Amendment— Where is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?—AARP v. Trump is an unfortunate case name—Facebook post raises eyebrows for Maine lawmakers—Correcting the color of our briefs—Dissents, dissental, disgrantle—Move over Robert Bork Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices