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 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:

Season 4, Episode 7 (Show 164): What the Oral Argument Should Have Said – EARLY RELEASE

February 11, 2024

Following the Trump v. Anderson argument at the Supreme Court, we review the clips, give you the facts, and sound the alarm with an early release of our podcast.

CLE Credit Available for this episode beginning Monday, February 12.

EARLY RELEASE – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, and we were so alarmed by the errant direction they took that we decided to take to the air early. Here are key clips from the argument dissected – exposed, really – to reveal the mistaken representations of the meaning of certain cases; the ignoring of key facts which then distort others; the absence of key lines of argument; and the danger that the Court may be headed for another debacle on the scale of Bush v. Gore. Professor Amar “slows everything down” so the sometimes subtle misdirection that a fast-paced oral argument can induce is neutralized, creating  clarity that we can only hope some Justice or some clerk sees in time.  This episode is posted 4 days early for this reason, and next week’s will follow later this week as well. 

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening, beginning Monday, February 12.)

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 6 (Show 163): 20 Questions on Section 3 and More on Insurrection #1 – Special Guest Ted Widmer

February 7, 2024

With oral arguments set for this Thursday, we review the 20 questions our brief set forth on the Trump disqualification case, and we bring on an expert of what we have termed the First Insurrection of 1860-61 to add to that crucial story.

CLE Credit Available for this episode.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake.  We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses.  We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored – the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation.

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 5 (Show 162): A Self-Executing Gaffe

January 31, 2024

Professor Amar debates former Attorney General Michael Mukasey at the Harvard Law School, and takes issue with a major point from Mukasey’s amicus brief in the Trump v. Anderson case.

CLE Credit Available for this episode.

Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else.  At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others.  We analyze the debate – and the brief.  And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole.  This is an indispensable episode. 

(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 4 (Show 161): The Amicus Brief – Part Two

January 24, 2024

We continue to walk through the amicus brief by Vik and Akhil Amar in the Colorado/Section Three case.

CLE Credit Available for this episode.

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks.  In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar.  We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media.  When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three.  Will the Court see it this way?  Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it. 

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 3 (Show 160): Friends of the Court – The Brief

January 20, 2024

Our brief in Trump v. Anderson et al is up on the Supreme Court site; we dissect and elaborate.

CLE Credit Available for this episode.

The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al.  The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant – perhaps decisive – to the case.  Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes clear the certain intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment – and the course the Supreme Court should take in this case. This, and the episodes to follow, may be the most important episodes we have offered in the more than three years of this podcast.

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

Show Notes: