Podcasts about Reconstruction Amendments

This episode of Justice Above All examines how the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and how today's legal arguments decontextualize the Amendment's historical context in which it was ratified—during Reconstruction, to secure full citizenship and legal equality for formerly enslaved Black people.  Today, multiple Supreme Court decisions reflect an inaccurate and ahistorical reading of the Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth—which were enacted to dismantle the legacy of slavery and secure full citizenship and equal protection under the law for all people of African descent.Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Lynne Adrine: Alumna, Ludlow Elementary School and President, LKA Strategies- Joel Motley: Civil and human rights advocate, filmmaker, and the son of Constance Baker Motle- Kenji Yoshino: Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU School of Law and Faculty Director, Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and BelongingFor more information on this episode, please visit https://tminstituteldf.org/brown-v-board-ii-fourteenth-amendment-myth-of-neutrality/.This episode was produced by Jakiyah Bradley and Lauren O'Neil. It was hosted by Karla McKanders. Resonate Recordings edited the episode.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.

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship 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

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship 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

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Zak Paine, Chris Paul, CannCon and Ashe in America for Badlands Media's Special Coverage of the 2025 election certification. As Trump officially secures his presidency with J.D. Vance as Vice President, the hosts break down the procedural process, Kamala Harris's role, and the legacy of January 6th. From historical insights on the Reconstruction Amendments to reflections on media narratives, this episode provides both sharp commentary and thought-provoking analysis on the state of American governance.

My guest for today's interview is DaWuan Norwood, a dedicated civil rights attorney and advocate for Black liberation. DaWuan specializes in voting rights, democracy, and criminal penal system abolition, bringing a wealth of experience from their work with organizations such as the NAACP, ACLU, and Campaign Legal Center. We explore their journey from law school to the frontlines of voting rights litigation and their innovative research on the Reconstruction Amendments. DaWuan's passion for justice and commitment to underrepresented communities shines through in this powerful conversation.

How have universities become the focal point of inclusive religious dialogue? Join us for a captivating episode as we converse with Winifred Sullivan, a professor at Indiana University, who brings a wealth of experience from her dual careers in law and academia. Learn about her pivotal role at the Center for Religion and the Human, where diverse voices collaborate on addressing contemporary issues such as climate change, political conflicts, and technological advancements. Sullivan underscores the importance of public universities as venues fostering robust discussions on religion and its intersection with today's most pressing challenges.Travel back in time with us as we unravel the complex history of religious freedom in the United States. Our exploration starts from the inception of the Constitution and its evolution through the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction Amendments. We delve into James Madison's evolving views on federal power and citizen rights, leading to the 20th-century incorporation doctrine that transformed state governance. This legal journey is intricately tied to America's religious diversity, highlighting pivotal cases like Johnson v. McIntosh and the doctrine of discovery's enduring influence.In our deep dive into indigenous influences on democracy, we spotlight the Haudenosaunee Confederacy's profound impact on Western democratic models. Discover how early recognition of Native American nations shaped governance and treaties, and how these indigenous roots resonate in today's interpretation of religion in public life. We also reflect on the tragic self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell and its implications for understanding radical dissent. Rounding off the episode, we examine Joan of Arc's political theology and the significant, yet often overlooked, contributions of the Haudenosaunee to American democracy, showcased in the Smithsonian's "Voices and Votes" exhibit. This episode promises an enriching narrative that bridges historical insights with contemporary relevance.Support the Show.View the transcript and show notes at podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org. Learn more about the Doctrine of Discovery on our site DoctrineofDiscovery.org.

How did the Reconstruction Amendments set the stage for the ongoing battle for civil rights? In this episode of 60-Second Civics, Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Center for Civic Education

In this episode of Consider the Constitution, recorded close to the 2024 Juneteenth federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey interviews Dr. DeAnza Cook about the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) and their impact on the American justice system. Dr. Cook explains how the 13th Amendment abolished slavery but left a loophole allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. This led to the disproportionate criminalization and incarceration of Black Americans during the Reconstruction era and beyond.The 14th and 15th Amendments aimed to address citizenship and voting rights for African Americans, but racial discrimination persisted. Black activists leveraged these amendments to challenge racist policing and punishment practices through the courts, protests, and self-defense. However, mass incarceration, which began in the late 20th century, continues to disproportionately affect people of color.Dr. Cook introduces the concept of "abolition democracy," which argues that the abolition of slavery was not enough to secure the rights and freedoms promised to Black Americans. She emphasizes the importance of restoring voting rights for those serving felony convictions and addressing de facto disenfranchisement in jails.The episode underscores the ongoing struggle for equal protection under the law and the need for collective action to pursue a more just and inclusive democracy, particularly as we reflect on the significance of Juneteenth.

Madiba Dennie is Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at the critical legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes. Her debut book is The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We The People Can Take it Back. We discuss a fresh way to interpret the Constitution.Inclusive Constitutionalism interprets the Constitution in a way that makes inclusive democracy real. By contrast, originalism interprets the meaning of the Constitution as fixed in time in the 1800s. However, the Reconstruction Amendments that were enacted in the wake of the Civil War tried to address the status of newly freed, formerly enslaved people. The Amendments were designed to foster a multiracial democracy for the first time. In addition, the public has a role in articulating what it believes the Constitution means.Follow Madiba on X: https://x.com/AudreLawdAMercyFollow Mila on X: https://x.com/milaatmosAdditional InformationThe Democracy Group listener surveyFuture Hindsight PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group

Madiba Dennie is Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at the critical legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes. Her debut book is The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We The People Can Take it Back. We discuss a fresh way to interpret the Constitution.   Inclusive Constitutionalism interprets the Constitution in a way that makes inclusive democracy real. By contrast, originalism interprets the meaning of the Constitution as fixed in time in the 1800s. However, the Reconstruction Amendments that were enacted in the wake of the Civil War tried to address the status of newly freed, formerly enslaved people. The Amendments were designed to foster a multiracial democracy for the first time. In addition, the public has a role in articulating what it believes the Constitution means. Follow Madiba on X:  https://x.com/AudreLawdAMercy    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Sponsor:  Thanks to Shopify for supporting Future Hindsight! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!  http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard    Take the Democracy Group's Listener Survey! https://www.democracygroup.org/survey   Want to support the show and get it early?  https://patreon.com/futurehindsight    Check out the Future Hindsight website!  www.futurehindsight.com   Read the transcript here:   https://www.futurehindsight.com/episodes/take-the-constitution-back-from-originalism-madiba-dennie  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Madiba Dennie Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

A Lightweight Champion, a female politician who challenged the glass ceiling, and an influential jazz musician. Who were they?Today's episode shares three  more mixed-race public figures from history. Coined “The Reading Hour”, listen along as Jolie reads about these dynamic trailblazers.Saoul Paul Mamby (1947–2019) was an American boxer who held the WBC super lightweight title from 1980 to 1982. Born in the South Bronx, New York, to parents of Spanish and Jamaican descent, Mamby converted to Judaism at a young age. He began boxing in 1963, turned professional in 1969, and served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. Mamby's boxing career included notable victories and title defenses, facing opponents like Roberto Durán and Saengsak Muangsurin. He continued fighting into his 50s and attempted a comeback at age 60, becoming one of the oldest boxers to compete in an officially sanctioned bout. Known for his durability, Mamby was stopped only once in 85 professional fights.Mae Street Kidd (1904–1999) was an American businesswoman, civic leader, and politician known for her significant contributions during a time when gender and racial barriers were prominent. Born in Kentucky to an interracial family, she had a distinguished career in public relations and served in the Red Cross during WWII. In politics, she represented Louisville in the Kentucky House of Representatives from 1968 to 1984, advocating for landmark legislation such as the creation of the Kentucky Housing Corporation and the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Kidd's legacy reflects her resilience and commitment to civil rights.Charles Mingus Jr. (1922–1979) was a multifaceted American jazz musician known for his prowess as an upright bassist, composer, bandleader, and pianist. He was a key figure in jazz history, collaborating with luminaries like Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, and Max Roach. Mingus' innovative compositions spanned genres from bebop to avant-garde jazz, showcased in albums like "Pithecanthropus Erectus" and "Mingus Ah Um." His music continues to be celebrated, performed by groups like the Mingus Big Band. Mingus' life was marked by his diverse heritage and experiences with racism, shaping his music's themes of injustice and discrimination. He was also known for his tempestuous personality and occasionally violent temper, alongside his brilliance as a musician. Mingus left a lasting legacy in jazz, honored with accolades like induction into the Grammy Hall of Fame and a US postage stamp in his honor.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoul_Mambyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_Street_Kiddhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_MingusDOWNLOAD and SUBSCRIBE to Generation Mixed, on Apple, Spotify, IHeart, or Spreaker!FOLLOW US: Instagram: @generationmixedpodcast | https://www.instagram.com/generationmixedpodcast/Tik-Tok: @GenMixedpodcast | https://www.tiktok.com/@genmixedpodcastSubscribe to our newsletter at www.nuwavemedia.orgE-mail us with any questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes: Generationmixedpodcast@gmail.comWanna be on the show? Text or call 510-852-9550! What it means to be multiracial in America, one story at a time, from the studio to the streets.  –Exciting news! JMarc has partnered with NuWave Community Media, a non-profit promoting digital literacy. Support our cause by donating or volunteering at www.nuwavemedia.org. Explore our diverse podcastsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/generation-mixed--5176197/support.

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Constitution, focusing on their profound impact on American society and law. The Reconstruction Amendments. 13th Amendment (Abolition of Slavery). Ratified in 1865, this amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was a monumental step towards racial equality, directly addressing the institution of slavery that had divided the nation. Legal Impact: Beyond its immediate effect of emancipating slaves, the 13th Amendment has served as the foundation for later civil rights legislation and court decisions, including laws against peonage, forced labor, and human trafficking. 14th Amendment (Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection) Ratified in 1868, it contains several key provisions: granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves; requiring states to afford due process of law; and mandating equal protection under the laws. Legal Significance: This amendment fundamentally transformed the relationship between states and citizens, extending the protection of civil rights and liberties to the state level. It has been central to landmark Supreme Court decisions on segregation, abortion, marriage equality, and more. 15th Amendment (Voting Rights). Ratified in 1870, it prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, aiming to secure voting rights for African American men. Impact and Challenges: Despite its clear mandate, the enforcement of the 15th Amendment faced significant obstacles, including Jim Crow laws and other forms of voter suppression. It laid the groundwork for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment. Recent Amendments and Their Impact. 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage). Ratified in 1920, this amendment granted women the right to vote, marking a pivotal moment in the women's rights movement. Impact: The 19th Amendment was the culmination of decades of activism and struggle, significantly expanding democracy in the United States. It has had a lasting effect on American politics and society, increasing gender equality in voting and beyond. 24th Amendment (Abolition of Poll Taxes). Ratified in 1964, it prohibited the use of poll taxes in federal elections, a practice that had been used to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. Significance: By eliminating a significant barrier to voting, the 24th Amendment furthered the democratic principle of universal suffrage, paving the way for greater voter participation across socioeconomic lines. 26th Amendment (Voting Age Lowered to 18). Ratified in 1971, in response to arguments that those old enough to be drafted for the Vietnam War should also have the right to vote. Impact: Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 expanded the electorate and emphasized the importance of youth engagement in the political process. It reflected societal changes and acknowledged the capability of younger citizens to contribute meaningfully to democracy. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also:   Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also:   Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also:   Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us as we delve into the crucial debate surrounding the exclusion of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots, a pivotal issue in the political and legal spheres with Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, Henry L. Chambers, JR. Our insightful discussion centers on the implications of the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 3, which disqualifies individuals involved in insurrection from holding office. We dissect the self-executing aspect of the 14th Amendment and analyze the diverse interpretations by states like Colorado and Maine.Crucially, we examine the Supreme Court's role in determining Trump's eligibility, emphasizing the significance of their impending decision. Our conversation also ventures into the possibility of a write-in campaign and its extensive political ramifications.Throughout the episode, we navigate through various dimensions of the upcoming election, focusing on bipartisan perspectives on disqualifying Trump, the urgent need for highly qualified presidential candidates, and the intense nature of presidential elections. We address the concerning lack of national discourse on multiple qualified candidates, the internal divisions plaguing the Republican Party, and the overall scarcity of meaningful dialogues and common ground in today's political landscape.Furthermore, we discuss the anxieties surrounding the upcoming election, the ongoing court cases and state legislation pertinent to Trump's disqualification, the necessity for a national discussion on the January 6th insurrection, and the interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the Reconstruction Amendments. It was a very in-depth conversation with a wonderful mind helping us make sense of it all! Read the publication Professor Chambers mentioned in the show: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol69/iss1/10/Guest Bio:Professor Henry L. Chambers, Jr., teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, criminal law, law and religion, and employment discrimination. He is active in the Virginia State Bar, including serving as chair of its Section on the Education of Lawyers from 2007-2009, and has been a member of the American Law Institute since 2002. Professor Chambers served as Special Assistant Attorney General for redistricting matters for the Commonwealth of Virginia from 2011-2013. He also frequently lectures on constitutional law through the We The People program, which provides civic education instruction to school teachers and the public; at James Madison's Montpelier; and at the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville.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

Chrissie explains the third of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fifteenth. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts221 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis.Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavid You can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/BQN

Chrissie explains the Second of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fourteenth. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts220 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis.History with the Szilagyis is supported by our patrons: PatiSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckLaura DullKris HillBetty LarsenVince LockeJoin these wonderful supporters by visiting patreon.com/historywiththeszilagyis. Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavidYou can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/BQN

Chrissie explains the first of the Reconstruction Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the United States. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts219 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis. History with the Szilagyis is supported by our patrons: PatiSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckLaura DullKris HillBetty Larson Vince LockeJoin these wonderful supporters by visiting patreon.com/historywiththeszilagyis. Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavidYou can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here:patreon.com/BQN

12-23-23See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The beginning of the Civil Rights Movement is often dated to sometime in the middle of the 1950s, but the roots of it stretch back much further. The NAACP, which calls itself “the nation's largest and most widely recognized civil rights organization,” was founded near the beginning of the 20th Century, on February 12, 1909. As today's guest demonstrates, though, Black Americans were exercising civil rights far earlier than that, in many cases even before the Civil War.  Joining me in this episode is Dr. Dylan C. Penningroth is a professor of law and history and Associate Dean of the Program in Jurisprudence and Social Policy at the University of California–Berkeley and author of Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The mid-episode music is “Hopeful Piano,” by Oleg Kyrylkovv, available via the Pixabay license. The episode image is “Spectators and witnesses on second day of Superior Court during trial of automobile accident case during court week in Granville County Courthouse, Oxford, North Carolina,” by Marion Post Wolcott, photographed in 1939; the photograph is in the public domain and available via the Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division, Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives. Additional Sources: “8 Key Laws That Advanced Civil Rights,” by Mehrunnisa Wani, History.com, January 26, 2022. “The Reconstruction Amendments: Official Documents as Social History,” by Eric Foner, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. “(1865) Reconstruction Amendments, 1865-1870,” BlackPast. “14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” U.S. National Archives. “March 27, 1866: Veto Message on Civil Rights Legislation,” Andrew Johnson, UVA Miller Center. “Andrew Johnson and the veto of the Civil Rights Bill,” National Park Service. “Grant signs KKK Act into law, April 20, 1871,” by Andrew Glass, Politico, April 20, 2019. “Looking back at the Ku Klux Klan Act,” by Nicholas Mosvick, National Constitution Center, April 20, 2021. “Reconstruction and Its Aftermath,” Library of Congress The African American Odyssey: A Quest for Full Citizenship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Reconstruction Amendments and How They've Created Our Political World Today   Guest: Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University.  He is the author of several books including, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men; The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery which won the Pulitzer; and The Second Founding : How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution.   The post KPFA Special – Volatile Times: The Political History of the Civil War Part III appeared first on KPFA.

Imagine navigating the intricate pathways of immigration and citizenship in the United States, only to find yourself in uncharted territory. Join me and esteemed legal scholar, Amanda Frost, as we embark on this journey through the complexities of these policies. We uncover the historical evolution of immigration and citizenship, shedding light on the legal and political perspectives that have shaped this contentious debate. Unearth with us how the outcomes of these policies directly impact immigrants and the broader American society, and grasp the implications these issues pose on our nation's identity and future.Ever wondered why American citizenship is a gray area? It all stems from the lack of a clear definition in the U.S. Constitution. Amanda and I delve into the significant contributions of the Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the 14th Amendment, to the idea of citizenship, revealing the persisting gray areas that continue to challenge the concept of citizenship in the United States. This conversation spotlights contemporary issues with citizenship, highlighting the historical and current attempts to deny citizenship to different groups. We also about the power of birthright citizenship. We evaluate its significance in the United States, how it compares to other countries, and its influence on our national identity. Amanda stresses the essential role immigrants play in the U.S. workforce, and the need for more accessible legal pathways for immigrants. She also underscores the need for a more positive narrative surrounding immigration, one that values and appreciates the contributions of immigrants to our society. So, tune in, because the future of immigration and citizenship in America is a story you don't want to miss.-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramPost.newsYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com **Artwork: Dovi Design **Music: Joystock

How did the Reconstruction Amendments set the stage for the ongoing battle for civil rights? In this episode of 60-Second Civics, Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Center for Civic Education

How did the Reconstruction Amendments set the stage for the ongoing battle for civil rights? In this episode of 60-Second Civics, Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Center for Civic Education

The 14th Amendment It has been used to justify everything from banning VCR's to sanctioning the murder of babies in this country.  How many of you actually know what the 14th Amendment states? The Northerners were plotting and scheming to permanently subjugate the South. Read the actual text and you will see the viciousness in it. The 14th Amendment was never ratified. PERIOD. OVERVIEW from Cornell Law School - The Fourteenth Amendment contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges & immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One. However, the Fourteenth Amendment contains four other sections. Section Two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress. Section Three forbids anyone who participates in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding federal office. Section Four addresses federal debt and repudiates debts accrued by the Confederacy. Section Five expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, along with the other Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth and Fifteenth. How did the 14th Amendment become the Miracle Amendment? AUDIO/VIDEO: Joe Biden on using the 14th Amendment - I have been considering the 14th Amendment, I am looking at months down the road to see if the courts would say about whether or not it works.

This week on The Learning Curve, guest cohosts Charlie Chieppo and Alisha Searcy speak with Dr. Eric Foner, Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University and Pulitzer Prize-winning author on Lincoln, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. They discuss what educators and students today need to know about the post-Civil War era, Reconstruction, and the legacy of slavery. Professor Foner talks about emancipated slaves' quest for economic autonomy and equal citizenship, and the importance of studying and understanding the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He closes the interview with a reading from his book The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.

Support the showIf you would like to discuss legal topics in person, join Law Schoolers Pro at https://lawschoolers.com/law-schoolers-pro/Disclaimers:1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage which means that there will be bumps, dings, and some pops.2. The information contained in these episodes are for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

A new book, The Nation That Never Was, by Professor Kermit Roosevelt III of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, engages in extensive historical, legal, political, and philosophical analysis of the American story.  This is nothing less than a search for America's most useful and unifying narrative, even as we are living with the controversy and divisions that the “1619” and “1776” projects have wrought (or highlighted).  Professor Roosevelt embraces some of Professor Amar's key innovations and claims, including the centrality of the Reconstruction Amendments for valid originalist analyses,  but he also makes claims that, shall we say, get Akhil's (and Andy's!) attention.  So, too, will it grab your attention as you listen to a respectful debate.

The Supreme Court is usually seen as protector of our liberties: it ended segregation, was a guarantor of fair trials, and safeguarded free speech and the vote. But this narrative derives mostly from a short period, from the 1930s to the early 1970s. Before then, the Court spent a century largely ignoring or suppressing basic rights, while the fifty years since 1970 have witnessed a mostly accelerating retreat from racial justice.From the Cherokee Trail of Tears to Brown v. Board of Education to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, historian Orville Vernon Burton and civil rights lawyer Armand Derfner shine a powerful light on the Court's race record―a legacy at times uplifting, but more often distressing and sometimes disgraceful. For nearly a century, the Court ensured that the nineteenth-century Reconstruction Amendments would not truly free and enfranchise African Americans. And the twenty-first century has seen a steady erosion of commitments to enforcing hard-won rights.Justice Deferred is the first book that comprehensively charts the Court's race jurisprudence. Addressing nearly two hundred cases involving America's racial minorities, the authors probe the parties involved, the justices' reasoning, and the impact of individual rulings. We learn of heroes such as Thurgood Marshall; villains, including Roger Taney; and enigmas like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Hugo Black. Much of the fragility of civil rights in America is due to the Supreme Court, but as this sweeping history also reminds us, the justices still have the power to make good on the country's promise of equal rights for all.HOST:  Rob MellonFEATURED BREW:  Lowcountry Lager, Palmetto Brewing Company, Charleston, South CarolinaBOOK:  Justice Deferred: Race and the Supreme Courthttps://www.amazon.com/Justice-Deferred-Race-Supreme-Court/dp/0674975642/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30T9ZFZCXRMRL&keywords=vernon+burton+justice&qid=1653778788&sprefix=vernon+burton+justic%2Caps%2C185&sr=8-1MUSIC:  Bones Forkhttps://bonesfork.com/

In this episode of Across The Margin : The Podcast host Michael Shields interviews Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University where she is also the principal investigator for the Democratic Knowledge Project. In 2020, she won the Kluge Prize for Achievement in the Study of Humanity, administered by the Library of Congress, that recognizes work in disciplines not covered by the Nobel Prizes. She is the author or co-editor of many books, including Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, and Democracy in the time of Coronavirus, which is the focus of this episode. In Democracy in the Time of Coronavirus Allen untangles the U.S. government's COVID-19 victories and failures to offer a plan for creating a more resilient democratic polity — one that can better respond to both the present pandemic and future crises. Looking to history, Allen also identifies the challenges faced by democracies in other times that required strong government action. In an analysis spanning from ancient Greece to the Reconstruction Amendments and the present day, Allen argues for the relative effectiveness of collaborative federalism over authoritarian compulsion and for the unifying power of a common cause. But for democracy to endure, we — as participatory citizens — must commit to that cause: a just and equal social contract and support for good governance. In this episode Michael Shields and Danielle Allen explore what exactly an ideal social contract that serves as the basis for a functioning constitutional democracy would look like while examining how currently that social contract is fundamentally broken. They discuss how important leadership is when dealing with massive crises, how the prospect of a "common purpose" could be the most powerful tool in the democratic tool kit, how federalism can be an asset in trying times, what the federal and state governments should have done to combat Covid 19, and much, much more. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments. In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress repeatedly debated the rights of the millions of former black slaves. By 1869, amendments had been passed to abolish slavery and provide citizenship and equal protection under the laws, but the election of Ulysses S grant to the presidency in 1868 convinced a majority of Republicans that protecting the franchise of black male voters was important for the party's future. On February 26, 1869, after rejecting more sweeping versions of a suffrage amendment, Congress proposed a compromise amendment banning franchise restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude. After surviving a difficult ratification fight, the amendment was certified as duly ratified and part of the Constitution on March 30, 1870. United States Supreme Court decisions in the late nineteenth century interpreted the amendment narrowly. From 1890 to 1910, southern states adopted new state constitutions and enacted laws that raised barriers to voter registration. This resulted in most black voters and many poor white ones being disenfranchised by poll taxes and discriminatory literacy tests, among other barriers to voting, from which white male voters were exempted by grandfather clauses. A system of white primaries and violent intimidation by white groups also suppressed black participation. In the twentieth century, the Court began to interpret the amendment more broadly, striking down grandfather clauses in Guinn v United States (1915) and dismantling the white primary system in the "Texas primary cases" (1927 thru 1953). Voting rights were further incorporated into the Constitution in the Nineteenth Amendment (voting rights for women) and the Twenty-fourth Amendment (prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided federal oversight of elections in discriminatory jurisdictions, banned literacy tests and similar discriminatory devices, and created legal remedies for people affected by voting discrimination. The Court also found poll taxes in state elections unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections (1966). Text. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered as one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v United States (1935), to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.

Judicial interpretation In contrast to the other "Reconstruction Amendments", the Thirteenth Amendment was rarely cited in later case law. As historian Amy Dru Stanley summarizes, "beyond a handful of landmark rulings striking down debt peonage, flagrant involuntary servitude, and some instances of race-based violence and discrimination, the Thirteenth Amendment has never been a potent source of rights claims." Black slaves and their descendants United States v Rhodes (1866), one of the first Thirteenth Amendment cases, tested the constitutionality of provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that granted blacks redress in the federal courts. Kentucky law prohibited blacks from testifying against whites—an arrangement which compromised the ability of Nancy Talbot ("a citizen of the United States of the African race") to reach justice against a white person accused of robbing her. After Talbot attempted to try the case in federal court, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled this federal option unconstitutional. Noah Swayne (a Supreme Court justice sitting on the Kentucky Circuit Court) overturned the Kentucky decision, holding that without the material enforcement provided by the Civil Rights Act, slavery would not truly be abolished. With In Re Turner (1867), Chief Justice Salmon P Chase ordered freedom for Elizabeth Turner, a former slave in Maryland who became indentured to her former master. In Blyew v United States, (1872) the Supreme Court heard another Civil Rights Act case relating to federal courts in Kentucky. John Blyew and George Kennard were white men visiting the cabin of a black family, the Fosters. Blyew apparently became angry with sixteen-year-old Richard Foster and hit him twice in the head with an ax. Blyew and Kennard killed Richard's parents, Sallie and Jack Foster, and his blind grandmother, Lucy Armstrong. They severely wounded the Fosters' two young daughters. Kentucky courts would not allow the Foster children to testify against Blyew and Kennard. Federal courts, authorized by the Civil Rights Act, found Blyew and Kennard guilty of murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the Foster children did not have standing in federal courts because only living people could take advantage of the Act. In doing so, the Courts effectively ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment did not permit a federal remedy in murder cases. Swayne and Joseph P Bradley dissented, maintaining that in order to have meaningful effects, the Thirteenth Amendment would have to address systemic racial oppression.

The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865, and proclaimed on December 18. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, effective on January 1, 1863, declared that the enslaved in Confederate-controlled areas were free. When they escaped to Union lines or federal forces—including now-former slaves—advanced south, emancipation occurred without any compensation to the former owners. Texas was the last Confederate territory reached by the Union army. On June 19, 1865—Juneteenth—U.S. Army general Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to proclaim the war had ended and so had slavery (in the Confederate states). In the slave-owning areas controlled by Union forces on January 1, 1863, state action was used to abolish slavery. The exceptions were Kentucky and Delaware, where slavery was finally ended by the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865. In contrast to the other Reconstruction Amendments, the Thirteenth Amendment has rarely been cited in case law, but has been used to strike down peonage and some race-based discrimination as "badges and incidents of slavery". The Thirteenth Amendment has also been invoked to empower Congress to make laws against modern forms of slavery, such as sex trafficking. Since 1776, states had divided into states that allowed or states that prohibited slavery. Slavery was implicitly recognized in the original Constitution in provisions such as Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which provided that three-fifths of each state's enslaved population (“other persons”) was to be added to its free population for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives and direct taxes among the states. Article 4, Section 2, provided that slaves held under the laws of one state, who escaped to another state, did not become free, but remained slaves. Though three million Confederate slaves were in fact eventually freed as a result of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, their post-war status was uncertain. To ensure the abolition was beyond legal challenge, an amendment to the Constitution to that effect was initiated. On April 8, 1864, the Senate passed an amendment to abolish slavery. After one unsuccessful vote and extensive legislative maneuvering by the Lincoln administration, the House followed suit on January 31, 1865. The measure was swiftly ratified by nearly all Northern states, along with a sufficient number of border states (slave states not part of the Confederacy) up to the assassination of President Lincoln. However, the approval came via his successor, President Andrew Johnson, who encouraged the "reconstructed" Southern states of Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia to agree, which brought the count to 27 states, leading to its adoption before the end of 1865.

Following the Civil War and emancipation of enslaved African Americans, Congress passed three Constitutional Amendments in the 1860s, known as the Reconstruction Amendments, that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (13th), provided citizenship to those born or naturalized in the U.S. regardless of race (14th), and guaranteed the right of all citizens to vote (15th). The following decade, known as the Reconstruction era (1863 - 1877), was the attempt by the U.S. Government to address the inequities and the protect the rights of newly enfranchised African Americans. However, the 1880s marked the resurgence of white supremacy in the south and the rollback of these advancements; Jim Crow laws, voter suppression, and quasi-renslavement through convict leasing eliminated the gains made by freed people. One of the most infamous Supreme Court rulings that codified state-sanctioned segregation and provided the foundation for institutionalized inequality was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The majority opinion effectively declared “separate but equal” public facilities, such as schools and public transportation, as constitutional and not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While these Black-only schools may have been denoted as “equal”, in reality they did not receive nearly the same amount of funds as white-only schools and lacked adequate resources and facilities for Black children. Teachers at Black schools were paid substantially less and resources at Black schools were often discarded by nearby white schools. In South Carolina, the government spent 3x as much on white schools than Black schools and 100x more on the transportation of white children than Black children to schools. Studio ATAO juzR4QoNRdxZzKFRE7h1 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/according-2-b-matthews/support

Amending the Constitution The procedure for amending the Constitution is outlined in Article Five (see above). The process is overseen by the archivist of the United States. Between 1949 and 1985, it was overseen by the administrator of General Services, and before that by the secretary of state. Under Article Five, a proposal for an amendment must be adopted either by Congress or by a national convention, but as of 2020 all amendments have gone through Congress. The proposal must receive two-thirds of the votes of both houses to proceed. It is passed as a joint resolution, but is not presented to the president, who plays no part in the process. Instead, it is passed to the Office of the Federal Register, which copies it in slip law format and submits it to the states. Congress decides whether the proposal is to be ratified in the state legislature or by a state ratifying convention. To date all amendments have been ratified by the state legislatures except one, the Twenty-first Amendment. A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 states). There is no further step. The text requires no additional action by Congress or anyone else after ratification by the required number of states. Thus, when the Office of the Federal Register verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the nation's frame of government. This certification is published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and to the nation that the ratification process has been successfully completed. Ratified amendments. The Constitution has twenty-seven amendments. Structurally, the Constitution's original text and all prior amendments remain untouched. The precedent for this practice was set in 1789, when Congress considered and proposed the first several Constitutional amendments. Among these, Amendments 1 thru 10 are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and Amendments 13 thru 15 are known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Excluding the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which was pending before the states for 202 years, 225 days, the longest pending amendment that was successfully ratified was the Twenty-second Amendment, which took 3 years, 343 days. The Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in the shortest time, 100 days. The average ratification time for the first twenty-six amendments was 1 year, 252 days; for all twenty-seven, 9 years, 48 days. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The Civil War and its aftermath were a turning point in American history. Starting near the end of the war and then continuing during Reconstruction, Congress set to work drafting three constitutional amendments that would fundamentally alter our founding document. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments, aimed to protect the liberties that had previously been denied in much of the country. Together, these amendments abolished slavery, established the rights to due process and equal protection, and banned racial discrimination in voting laws.Today, the Reconstruction Amendments remain at the heart of some of our most contentious legal controversies: Does equal protection mandate equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? To what extent does due process carry with it substantive rights of personal autonomy? And do the “privileges or immunities” guaranteed to all citizens encompass a broader set of rights than courts have been willing to protect?To help us answer these questions, it is crucial to understand what those who drafted, debated, and ratified the Reconstruction Amendments thought and said. University of Richmond law professor Kurt Lash's epic two‐​volume work is the most comprehensive source ever compiled of the key speeches, debates, and public dialogues that accompanied the drafting and ratification of these amendments. In this book forum, Professor Lash will comment on his work and the importance of primary historical sources to constitutional study. Professors Christopher Green and Richard Primus will also offer their thoughts on the work and its implications. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Episode 5 of Deep Dive, Will and Adam tease out positive law originalism further by discussing "original law originalism." They discuss the difference between original intent and original meaning, how scholars might use methods of change, and how originalism handles the Reconstruction Amendments.Recorded February 8, 2021

One hundred and twenty five years ago this week, The Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Plessy v Ferguson. The case infamously declared that separate but equal was constitutional. The setting for the case was a train car, but the ramifications on society were profound. And while the Brown v Board decision 63 years later did away with some of those ramifications, in many ways, Plessy remains with us today. Coming in the wake of the civil war, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments make up what are known as the Reconstruction Amendments, the Amendments intended to guarantee the freedom of formerly enslaved people. In many ways, the promise of these Amendments remains unfulfilled. In their immediate aftermath, many state legislatures took steps to undermine them, often upheld by federal courts. The Plessy case came in response to just such a law. In 1890 Louisiana State Legislature passed the Separate Car Act requiring equal, but separate train cars for White and Black passengers. Two years later, Homer Plessy agreed to participate in a challenge to the law, by boarding a train and refusing to ride in the Black car. He was arrested and challenged his case all the way to The Supreme Court. This decision, regularly making top 10 lists of worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, enshrined segregation in law, allowing for Jim Crow, Black codes, and undoing much of the gains made for Black people during the short-lived years of Reconstruction. However, the decision wasn't unanimous, there was one lone dissenting opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Justice Harlan earned the nickname, The Great Dissenter, for a number of dissenting opinions in favor of civil rights during his tenure on the Court at the end of the 19th century. And his dissent in the Plessy case served as a statement of what our values as a country could and should be. It was also a prescient warning of where the social caste system, enshrined by the majority opinion, would lead us. Paula Forbes has been at the intersection of law and education for many years. As the first in-house counsel for the Minneapolis Public School district, she saw the ways that the caste system enshrined by the Plessy decision, and never fully repaired, continues to act as a barrier to educational justice. She joins us to discuss the importance of reckoning with and repairing our past in order to create the future we desire.  LINKS:Paula Forbes websiteThe Chaordic Path Plessy v FergusonNYTimes Guest Essay on Justice Harlan by Peter CanellosPre-order Mr. Canellos's forthcoming book The Great DissenterThe Reconstruction AmendmentsJustice John Marshall HarlanMalvina Harlan (Justice Harlan's Wife)A story about Justice Harlan and his half-brotherRegister for the Integrated Schools Book Club in July.  We'll be reading Heather McGhee's The Sum of UsUse these links or start at our Bookshop.org storefront to support local bookstores, and send a portion of the proceeds back to us.  Join our Patreon to support this work, and connect with us and other listeners to discuss these issues even further.Let us know what you think of this episode, suggest future topics, or share your story with us - @integratedschls on twitter, IntegratedSchools on Facebook, or email us hello@integratedschools.org.The Integrated Schools Podcast was created by Courtney Mykytyn and Andrew Lefkowits.This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Andrew Lefkowits.Music by Kevin Casey.

In 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott were living in St. Louis, Missouri with their two daughters. They were enslaved and launched a not uncommon petition: a lawsuit for their freedom. Eleven years later Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would issue an opinion on their case that not only refused their freedom but attempted to cement the fate of all Black individuals in the United States. Taney would ultimately fail and the Reconstruction Amendments would dash Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v Sandford, but not before the case was forever cast as a Supreme Court decision gone wrong. The Scotts’ great great granddaughter, Lynne Jackson, is joined by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to tell the story of the Scotts and their case.

The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865 and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865 and proclaimed on December 18. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, issued on January 1, 1863, declared that the enslaved in Confederate-controlled areas were free. When they escaped to Union lines or federal forces—including now-former slaves—advanced south, emancipation occurred without any compensation to the former owners. Texas was the last Confederate territory reached by the Union army. On June 19, 1865—Juneteenth—U.S. Army general Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to proclaim the war had ended and so had slavery. In the slave-owning areas controlled by Union forces on January 1, 1863, state action was used to abolish slavery. The exceptions were Kentucky and Delaware where slavery was finally ended by the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865. In contrast to the other Reconstruction Amendments, the Thirteenth Amendment has rarely been cited in case law but has been used to strike down peonage and some race-based discrimination as "badges and incidents of slavery". The Thirteenth Amendment has also been invoked to empower Congress to make laws against modern forms of slavery, such as sex trafficking. Since 1804, states had divided into states that allowed or states that prohibited slavery. Slavery was implicitly recognized in the original Constitution in provisions such as Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which provided that three-fifths of each state's enslaved population (“other persons”) was to be added to its free population for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives and direct taxes among the states. Though three million Confederate slaves were in fact freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, their post-war status was uncertain. To ensure the abolition was beyond legal challenge, an amendment to the Constitution to that effect was initiated. On April 8, 1864, the Senate passed an amendment to abolish slavery. After one unsuccessful vote and extensive legislative maneuvering by the Lincoln administration, the House followed suit on January 31, 1865. The measure was swiftly ratified by nearly all Northern states, along with a sufficient number of border states (slave states not part of the Confederacy) up to the assassination of President Lincoln. However, the approval came via his successor, President Andrew Johnson, who encouraged the "reconstructed" Southern states of Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia to agree, which brought the count to 27 states, leading to its adoption before the end of 1865. Though the Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States, some Black Americans, particularly in the South, were subjected to other forms of involuntary labor, such as under the Black Codes, as well as subjected to white supremacist violence, and selective enforcement of statutes, besides other disabilities. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

On March 30, 1870, the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution was formally adopted. It had been ratified on February 3, 1870 as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments. On March 30, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish proclaimed the 15 Amendment to be officially part of the U.S. Constitution. Historian Stephen West explains, “That was considered necessary because of questions about its status amidst the messy and irregular politics of Reconstruction.”The 15th Amendment is described in Freedom’s Unfinished Revolution,“In 1870, two years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, Congress and the states responded to another round of racial violence in the South by providing additional constitutional protection for the Black electorate. The 15th Amendment declared that the right of U.S. citizens to vote could “not be abridged or denied” by any state” on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”Florida must expand, not curtail, access to the ballot box by Tom Lopach and Juanica Fernandes in the Tallahassee DemocratIn the aftermath of the contentious  2020 elections, there’s one point most Florida Republicans and Democrats can agree upon: The state and county election offices did an admirable job in running a fair and efficient election. As Gov. Ron DeSantis himself recently declared, “Last November, Florida held the smoothest, most successful election of any state in the country.”But that’s where the "Kumbaya" agreement may end. Despite the widespread acknowledgement of a free and fair electoral process in the Sunshine State, the governor and many lawmakers now want to backtrack. Several restrictive new voting laws, including SB 90, would upend Florida’s mail-in ballot system and cancel current mail ballot requests. Worst of all, these proposed bills threaten to disproportionately disenfranchise Florida’s Black and brown voters.Session's limited access darkens Sunshine Week (The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board on March 14) During a normal session of the Florida Legislature, the halls of the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings are filled with advocates, constituents and lobbyists, all hoping to persuade their elected officials on any given issue. Not this year. ‘Anti-educator’ bill clears Senate committee as hundreds of Florida teachers and school faculty testify against it As far as Senator Victor Torres is concerned, the message was loud and clear.“There’s no way I’m gonna support this bill,” he said. “Because you heard the testimony from different counties, from different sections of the state opposing this bill.”

Due to recent political victories and incredible hard work, consequences DO exist! First, Andrew breaks down that viral tweet which really misrepresented what the results of an impeachment conviction would be. While there will be consequences if Trump is convicted, the viral tweet doesn't capture it correctly. But that's not all! Many people have been talking about using the 14th amendment to expel traitorous Republicans, but Andrew is here to... CONFIRM THAT WE CAN! It's great news, and the case history is super fascinating. Links: The resolution, 25th amendment resolution, former presidents act, 3 US Code § 102, 14th Amendment history, FORGOTTEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF TREASON, Morton Stavis, Berger v. U.S., 255 U.S. 22 (1921), Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), Voting and Vice: Criminal Disenfranchisement and the Reconstruction Amendments, The Forgotten Constitutional Law of Treason, Standard Form 86, @NatlSecCnslrs

In this episode, Stephen M. Griffin, W.R. Irby Chair and Rutledge C. Clement Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law at Tulane University Law School, discusses his article "Optimistic Originalism and the Reconstruction Amendments," which will be published in the Tulane Law Review. Griffin begins by describing what he calls "optimistic originalism," or originalism that argues the "rights revolution" of the 20th century is consistent with the original meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments. Griffin explains the argument presented by optimistic originalists, why it is historically unconvincing, and how we should think about constitutional change.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution came out of the bloodiest and divisive periods in American history. Michael Bellesiles, author of "Inventing Equality: Reconstructing the Constitution in the Aftermath of the Civil War" joins 'Democracy Nerd' to discuss how the Reconstruction Amendments promised to expand democracy throughout the United States--and how they ultimately failed to deliver on this promise.

Ben Sheehan joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to discuss his new book, OMG WTF Does the Constitution Actually Say? – A Non-Boring Guide to How Our Democracy is Supposed to Work. You may think you know the origins of the “OMG WTF” acronyms, but you will have to listen to the interview to determine whether your assumptions are correct. Mr. Sheehan is a Funny or Die alumnus and an award-winning executive producer who has spent his career creating innovative and entertaining content in an effort to make politics more accessible. In 2016, he was Executive Director of the Save the Day PAC that used videos to register 50,000 young voters, and his various projects have received over a billion views. Mr. Sheehan discusses the importance of the “Preamble” with T.J. and provides an easy-to-understand overview of the first three Articles of the Constitution. In addition, he reviews some of the more salient elements of the Bill of Rights, including the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th) and the 19th Amendment. Ben and T.J. even discuss the presidential election of 1876, which is perhaps the most consequential election in our Nation’s history. If you do not know why, you need to listen to the podcast. Mr. Sheehan also shares insights into certain nuances of the Constitution as well as some of the “weird” subjects that it covers. It is a great primer on the Constitution at a time during which the teaching of Civics has gone by the wayside. Even if you think you know the Constitution, you are likely to gain additional insights from Mr. Sheehan’s book. If, like over 60 percent of our population, you lack an understanding about how our Government is actually supposed to work, Mr. Sheehan’s entertaining and straight-forward book can help close the gap… and his interview with T.J. is an excellent starting point.

Following the Civil War, the U.S. government passed three amendments one right after the other to protect the rights of former slaves as they transitioned from slavery to freedom.

In this episode, I look at the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), where the US Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was constitutional. This case helped usher in the Jim Crow era in America, and was a major blow to all the Reconstruction Amendments and civil rights laws passed after the Civil War. This case is fascinating and has many interesting parts to it. Listen to learn just a little about this very pivotal case. Books Mention: 1. Black Trials by Mark Weiner 2. Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court by Lawrence Goldstone 3. We as Freeman: Plessy v. Ferguson by Keith Weldon Medley Visit www.palookesworld.com for more information Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvWkh1FxD-EbUQRAxmou37Q

If you turn on the news, you’re likely to find a heated debate about big issues, from citizenship to voting rights. For Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Eric Foner, these issues are at the heart of what are often called the “Reconstruction Amendments”: the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. They were passed in 1865, 1868 and 1870, respectively. And if you ask Eric, they’ve been misinterpreted and overlooked for generations.  On this episode, Ed sits down with Eric Foner (http://www.ericfoner.com/) , a professor emeritus of history at Columbia University, to talk about public perceptions of Reconstruction, the landmark amendments to the Constitution and how they have the power to change the country today. Foner’s new book is The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/617893/the-second-founding-by-eric-foner/9780393652574) . Image: February 18, 1865 Harper's Weekly cartoon depicting celebration in the House of Representatives after adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. Source: Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv9bonn/page/n4) . BackStory is funded in part by our listeners. You can help keep the episodes coming by supporting the show: https://www.backstoryradio.org/support

The Reconstruction Amendments and How They've Created Our Political World Today. Guest: Eric Foner, the DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University. His book, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery won the Pulitzer Prize. His latest book is The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. The post Volatile Times: The Political History of the Civil War Part III appeared first on KPFA.

National Constitution Center Manager of Exhibition Development, Sarah Winski, and Exhibition Developer Elena Popchock discussed the museum's new permanent exhibition, Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality which explores the ‘Second Founding' and the writing, passage and impact of the Reconstruction Amendments.  In this first exhibition in the country to address the Constitutional battles over slavery that led to the Civil War and how the Constitution was changed to reflect the ideal of the Declaration of Independence, original drafts and documents, interactive displays and historic objects tell the story of the period before the war and of the Reconstruction years.  Ms Winski described how they approached the exhibit to explain the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and their immediate effect – African Americans not just voting, but voting in strong numbers and achieving elected offices across the states.  She noted that the effect was especially felt in the North, where they may have been free, but they were barred from voting.  They spoke about the gradual whittling of the rights granted through poll taxes and other ways to impede voting, the rise of Jim Crow laws and the formation of the Ku Klux Klan when Reconstruction ended. They told us how to get the most from the Museum and all of its exhibits, through education guides for teachers and parents to Town Hall lectures and discussions.   For more information about visiting the National Constitution Center go to constitutioncenter.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last week, the National Constitution Center opened its new permanent exhibit  ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality’ –America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. To celebrate the exhibit’s opening, NCC President Jeff Rosen sat down with Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Gates is the host of a new PBS series about Reconstruction and the author of the new book “Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow”. In this conversation, Gates tells the story of Reconstruction – discussing the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On May 7, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to celebrate the opening of the National Constitution Center’s new permanent exhibit – ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality.’ The exhibit is America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Professor Gates discussed the new exhibit in addition to his PBS series about Reconstruction and two new books—"Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow" and a young adult book "Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow." Gates told the story of the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes, vagrancy laws, and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today.  If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation, please listen and subscribe to our companion podcast, Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

On May 7, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to celebrate the opening of the National Constitution Center’s new permanent exhibit – ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality.’ The exhibit is America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Professor Gates discussed the new exhibit in addition to his PBS series about Reconstruction and two new books—"Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow" and a young adult book "Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow." Gates told the story of the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes, vagrancy laws, and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today.  If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation, please listen and subscribe to our companion podcast, Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On May 7, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to celebrate the opening of the National Constitution Center’s new permanent exhibit – ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality.’ The exhibit is America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Professor Gates discussed the new exhibit in addition to his PBS series about Reconstruction and two new books—"Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow" and a young adult book "Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow." Gates told the story of the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes, vagrancy laws, and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today.  If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation, please listen and subscribe to our companion podcast, Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This season, More Perfect is taking its camera lens off the Supreme Court and zooming in on the words of the people: the 27 amendments that We The People have made to our Constitution. We're taking on these 27 amendments both in song and in story. This episode is best listened to alongside 27: The Most Perfect Album, an entire album (an ALBUM!) and digital experience of original music and art inspired by the 27 Amendments. Think of these episodes as the audio liner notes. Amendments 13, 14, and 15 are collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments: they were passed as instructions to rebuild the country after Civil War. They addressed slavery, citizenship, equality and voting rights for black people. This week, the More Perfect team explores the legacy of the amendments beyond the Civil War — the ways the promises of these amendments changed the country and the ways they've fallen short. First, More Perfect Executive Producer Suzie Lechtenberg and Legal Editor Elie Mystal explore the loophole in the 13th Amendment's slavery ban that's being used in a strange context: college football. We share songs about the 13th Amendment from Kash Doll and Bette Smith. Then, producer Julia Longoria shares a conversation with her roommate Alia Almeida exploring their relationship to the amendments. Inspired by the 14th's Amendment's grant of equal protection and citizenship rights, Sarah Kay's poem tells the story of her grandmother, a U.S. citizen who was interned during World War II in a Japanese American Internment camp. Despite the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of U.S. citizens based solely on their Japanese heritage in a case called Korematsu v. United States. In 2018, the Supreme Court said Korematsu was "wrong the day it was decided." The Court went on to uphold President Trump's controversial travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii. "Korematsu has nothing to do with this case," wrote the majority. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor accused the majority of "redeploying the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu" when they upheld the ban. Finally, hear songs inspired by the 15th Amendment by Aisha Burns and Nnamidi Ogbonnaya.

After the Civil War, Congress passed a bundle of Amendments which came to be known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Their purpose was to address the mass racial inequality that plagued the still forming nation. But did they work? And are they still relevant today? Helping us unpack the last Reconstruction Amendments - the Fifteenth - is Khalilah Brown-Dean, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Quinnipiac University. 

After the Civil War, Congress passed a bundle of Amendments which came to be known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Their purpose was to address the mass racial inequality that plagued the still forming nation. But did they work? And are they still relevant today? Helping us unpack the first of these Amendments - the Thirteenth - is Maria Ontiveros, a Law Professor at the University of San Francisco and Thirteenth Amendment scholar.  

The Women's Loyal National League, also known as the Woman's National Loyal League and other variations of that name, was formed on May 14, 1863, to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would abolish slavery. It was organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, its president, and Susan B. Anthony, its secretary. In the largest petition drive in the nation's history up to that time, the League collected nearly 400,000 signatures on petitions to abolish slavery and presented them to Congress. Its petition drive significantly assisted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the U.S. The League disbanded in August 1864 after it became clear that the amendment would be approved. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Loyal_National_League) The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments. In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress repeatedly debated the rights of the millions of black former slaves. By 1869, amendments had been passed to abolish slavery and provide citizenship and equal protection under the laws, but the election of Ulysses S. Grant to the presidency in 1868 convinced a majority of Republicans that protecting the franchise of black male voters was important for the party's future. On February 26, 1869, after rejecting more sweeping versions of a suffrage amendment, Congress proposed a compromise amendment banning franchise restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude. After surviving a difficult ratification fight, the amendment was certified as duly ratified and part of the Constitution on March 30, 1870. The amendment created a split within the women's suffrage movement over the amendment not prohibiting denying the women the right to vote on account of sex. Information sourced from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Body sourced from youtu.be/FCl2BmbqCRM Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage downloaded and edited by Jason at PublicAccessPod producer of Public Access America Podcast Links Review us Stitcher: goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: goo.gl/gPEDbf YouTube goo.gl/xrKbJb YouTube

In this podcast I talk with Laura F. Edwards, Peabody Family Professor of History at Duke University about her book, A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015). Per the book's introduction, “[a]lthough hundreds of thousands of people died fighting in the Civil War, perhaps the war's biggest casualty was the nation's legal order. A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction explores the implications of this major change by bringing legal history into dialogue with the scholarship of other historical fields. Federal policy on slavery and race, particularly the three Reconstruction Amendments, are the best-known legal innovations of the era. Change, however, permeated all levels of the legal system, altering American's relationship to the law and allowing them to move popular conceptions of justice into the ambit of government policy. The results linked Americans to the nation through individual rights, which were extended to more people and, as a result of new claims, were reimagined to cover a wider array of issues. But rights had limits in what they could accomplish, particularly when it came to the collective goals that so many ordinary Americans advocated. Ultimately, Laura F. Edwards argues, this new nation of rights offered up promises that would prove difficult to sustain.” Some of the topics we cover are: –The way, in the lead up to the Civil War, all arguments came back to the Constitution. –How wartime policies in both the Confederacy and the states that remained in the Union fundamentally remade the –legal authority of the nation. –Why the Confederacy's legal order was at odds with its stated governing principles. –Popular conceptions of Reconstruction-era legal change.

In this podcast I talk with Laura F. Edwards, Peabody Family Professor of History at Duke University about her book, A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015). Per the book's introduction, “[a]lthough hundreds of thousands of people died fighting in the Civil War, perhaps the war's biggest casualty was the nation's legal order. A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction explores the implications of this major change by bringing legal history into dialogue with the scholarship of other historical fields. Federal policy on slavery and race, particularly the three Reconstruction Amendments, are the best-known legal innovations of the era. Change, however, permeated all levels of the legal system, altering American's relationship to the law and allowing them to move popular conceptions of justice into the ambit of government policy. The results linked Americans to the nation through individual rights, which were extended to more people and, as a result of new claims, were reimagined to cover a wider array of issues. But rights had limits in what they could accomplish, particularly when it came to the collective goals that so many ordinary Americans advocated. Ultimately, Laura F. Edwards argues, this new nation of rights offered up promises that would prove difficult to sustain.” Some of the topics we cover are: –The way, in the lead up to the Civil War, all arguments came back to the Constitution. –How wartime policies in both the Confederacy and the states that remained in the Union fundamentally remade the –legal authority of the nation. –Why the Confederacy's legal order was at odds with its stated governing principles. –Popular conceptions of Reconstruction-era legal change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

In this podcast I talk with Laura F. Edwards, Peabody Family Professor of History at Duke University about her book, A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015). Per the book’s introduction, “[a]lthough hundreds of thousands of people died fighting in the Civil War, perhaps the war’s biggest casualty was the nation’s legal order. A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction explores the implications of this major change by bringing legal history into dialogue with the scholarship of other historical fields. Federal policy on slavery and race, particularly the three Reconstruction Amendments, are the best-known legal innovations of the era. Change, however, permeated all levels of the legal system, altering American’s relationship to the law and allowing them to move popular conceptions of justice into the ambit of government policy. The results linked Americans to the nation through individual rights, which were extended to more people and, as a result of new claims, were reimagined to cover a wider array of issues. But rights had limits in what they could accomplish, particularly when it came to the collective goals that so many ordinary Americans advocated. Ultimately, Laura F. Edwards argues, this new nation of rights offered up promises that would prove difficult to sustain.” Some of the topics we cover are: –The way, in the lead up to the Civil War, all arguments came back to the Constitution. –How wartime policies in both the Confederacy and the states that remained in the Union fundamentally remade the –legal authority of the nation. –Why the Confederacy’s legal order was at odds with its stated governing principles. –Popular conceptions of Reconstruction-era legal change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Laura F. Edwards, Peabody Family Professor of History at Duke University about her book, A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015). Per the book’s introduction, “[a]lthough hundreds of thousands of people died fighting in the Civil War, perhaps the war’s biggest casualty was the nation’s legal order. A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction explores the implications of this major change by bringing legal history into dialogue with the scholarship of other historical fields. Federal policy on slavery and race, particularly the three Reconstruction Amendments, are the best-known legal innovations of the era. Change, however, permeated all levels of the legal system, altering American’s relationship to the law and allowing them to move popular conceptions of justice into the ambit of government policy. The results linked Americans to the nation through individual rights, which were extended to more people and, as a result of new claims, were reimagined to cover a wider array of issues. But rights had limits in what they could accomplish, particularly when it came to the collective goals that so many ordinary Americans advocated. Ultimately, Laura F. Edwards argues, this new nation of rights offered up promises that would prove difficult to sustain.” Some of the topics we cover are: –The way, in the lead up to the Civil War, all arguments came back to the Constitution. –How wartime policies in both the Confederacy and the states that remained in the Union fundamentally remade the –legal authority of the nation. –Why the Confederacy’s legal order was at odds with its stated governing principles. –Popular conceptions of Reconstruction-era legal change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Laura F. Edwards, Peabody Family Professor of History at Duke University about her book, A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015). Per the book’s introduction, “[a]lthough hundreds of thousands of people died fighting in the Civil War, perhaps the war’s biggest casualty was the nation’s legal order. A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction explores the implications of this major change by bringing legal history into dialogue with the scholarship of other historical fields. Federal policy on slavery and race, particularly the three Reconstruction Amendments, are the best-known legal innovations of the era. Change, however, permeated all levels of the legal system, altering American’s relationship to the law and allowing them to move popular conceptions of justice into the ambit of government policy. The results linked Americans to the nation through individual rights, which were extended to more people and, as a result of new claims, were reimagined to cover a wider array of issues. But rights had limits in what they could accomplish, particularly when it came to the collective goals that so many ordinary Americans advocated. Ultimately, Laura F. Edwards argues, this new nation of rights offered up promises that would prove difficult to sustain.” Some of the topics we cover are: –The way, in the lead up to the Civil War, all arguments came back to the Constitution. –How wartime policies in both the Confederacy and the states that remained in the Union fundamentally remade the –legal authority of the nation. –Why the Confederacy’s legal order was at odds with its stated governing principles. –Popular conceptions of Reconstruction-era legal change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Laura F. Edwards, Peabody Family Professor of History at Duke University about her book, A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015). Per the book’s introduction, “[a]lthough hundreds of thousands of people died fighting in the Civil War, perhaps the war’s biggest casualty was the nation’s legal order. A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction explores the implications of this major change by bringing legal history into dialogue with the scholarship of other historical fields. Federal policy on slavery and race, particularly the three Reconstruction Amendments, are the best-known legal innovations of the era. Change, however, permeated all levels of the legal system, altering American’s relationship to the law and allowing them to move popular conceptions of justice into the ambit of government policy. The results linked Americans to the nation through individual rights, which were extended to more people and, as a result of new claims, were reimagined to cover a wider array of issues. But rights had limits in what they could accomplish, particularly when it came to the collective goals that so many ordinary Americans advocated. Ultimately, Laura F. Edwards argues, this new nation of rights offered up promises that would prove difficult to sustain.” Some of the topics we cover are: –The way, in the lead up to the Civil War, all arguments came back to the Constitution. –How wartime policies in both the Confederacy and the states that remained in the Union fundamentally remade the –legal authority of the nation. –Why the Confederacy’s legal order was at odds with its stated governing principles. –Popular conceptions of Reconstruction-era legal change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments

The Discovering the Civil War exhibit showed some of the lesser-known records surrounding the American Civil War. These documents include personal testimony from soldiers and slaves, and drafts of some of the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution.

This episode we will talk about the Tea Party Movement with Community Activist Beni Dakar. She will break down when the Tea Party orginated and what they mean when they say "Take Our Country Back". She will go over the 13-15th Reconstruction Amendments. Call in to listen or join the conversation 347 994 3501 or online at www.blogtalkradio.com/fight-for-truth