In this new podcast, Professor Amar offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day. He is joined by host Andy Lipka and frequent guests: other top experts, including Bob Woodward, Neal Katyal, Nina Totenberg, Lawrence Lessig, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.

Season 4, Episode 13 (Show 170): History Will Judge

March 27, 2024

Justice Barrett’s concurrence is analyzed, the audience’s many questions are addressed, and the news media is recapped in a wide-ranging potpurri podcast.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrett’s concurrence.  All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Court’s errant reasoning and other shenanigans.  And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience!  So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well.  We also look at the news media’s latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyer’s new book and seeds planted by Professor Amar bearing fruit.

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes:

Submit a Question for Professor Amar
Subscribe to “Amarica’s Constitution” by clicking “Subscribe” or “Follow” after selecting your preferred podcast app below.

Season 4, Episode 12 (Show 169): Dissenting in Concurrence

March 20, 2024

Analysis of the concurrences, this time concentrating on those areas where these Justices disagreed with the per curiam opinion.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder.  This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many.  Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent.  Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences?  What can we learn from all this? 

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 11 (Show 168): What the Concurrences Should Have Said

March 13, 2024

We analyze the concurrences in Trump v. Anderson, looking at those areas where there was ostensible agreement.  We find much to bemoan.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment.  We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with.  We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find.  Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge?  And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court?

.

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 10 (Show 167): Happy Anniversary Mr. Lincoln from the Court

March 6, 2024

The opinion is in on Trump v. Anderson.  We explain why Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Amar are having a bad day.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was.  An announcement on a Sunday; no justices present; metadata strangeness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong.  Concurrences that are dissents.  A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices.  Notorious cases cited with approval.  The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error.  The autopsy begins.

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 9 (Show 166): Staking our Claim

February 28, 2024

As new evidence appears that seems crucial in Trump v. Anderson, the Court has remained silent. Will they see the evidence and possibly consider it? Also – Moore v. US oral argument clips and their relation to our brief in that case.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

As we return, we’re still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, and it gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light – thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team.  It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take.  Will it matter?  This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode. 

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 8 (Show 165): What the Oral Argument Should Have Said, Part 2

February 14, 2024

We complete our analysis of the Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. Anderson. Once again we review clips and not only critique, but explain and offer an alternative. Released early in our role as friends of the Court prior to the release of its decision.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson – before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues raised, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of “officer” and “office” questions.  As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court to avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths.  This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason.

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes: