Season 3, Episode 48 (Show 152): Guns, Clips, and Rahimi
November 22, 2023
We dissect the oral argument in US v. Rahimi, an important case that addresses gun rights and domestic violence matters. You will hear the justices, the advocates, and Akhil’s commentary.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work. We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip. The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that teach about originalism – properly done, and perhaps at times, improperly done.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 47 (Show 151): Moore on the Brief – Special Guest Vikram David Amar
November 15, 2023
We continue our analysis of the amicus brief in Moore vs. US, this time joined by the brief’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar – and the brief’s reception in the media and legal community.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The Amars’ amicus brief in Moore vs. United States is the talk of the legal ecosphere. Akhil’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar, joins us for analysis of the precedents that followed Hylton – faithful and otherwise. This tour de force of legal analysis is perfectly suited for your CLE credit. We also look at recent comments from the Supreme Court on Moore’s issues, and survey the reactions to the brief’s release. Various arguments that purport to address some of the brief’s claims have emerged: in support, in conflict, and complementary; we analyze and respond to them.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 46 (Show 150): Moore, in Brief
November 8, 2023
We analyze and explain Professor Amar’s amicus brief (co-authored with Vikram Amar) in Moore v. US, with particular emphasis on the Hylton case (1796).
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
In our 150th episode, we present the amicus brief in Moore v. United States, authored by Professor Amar with his brother, Professor Vikram Amar. The brief begins with the provocative statement that most other briefs in the case have missed the point? What is the point that they missed? We explain how their focus on the 16th amendment misses the basic constitutional questions which the Court answered back in 1796 in the Hylton v. US case. Who says so? Some guys named Washington and Hamilton, to start. And this Lincoln fellow agreed later. But everyone seems to have missed this. You won’t.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 45 (Show 149): Aisles, not Walls
November 1, 2023
There’s a new Speaker. Is there any prospect for bipartisanship? We look for places it does and can exist.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The follies in the House have ended, for now. Many Americans looked upon the travesty with despair, wondering if our government might yet be up to the task of leading and reaching beyond party to find country and duty. We take a good look and search for places where reaching across the aisle might still take place – and we try to do our part and go beyond demonizing those not in our own party. Plus – the Amars’ amicus brief is up in Moore vs. US, and we open that door.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 44 (Show 148): Speakerless
October 25, 2023
We continue our analysis of the many issues that the absence of a Speaker of the House raises, and we look at how this relates to the crisis in the Middle East and the overall functioning and purpose of our constitutional system. CLE Credit Available for this episode.
Still no speaker. Is it really the case that the House can’t do anything? How might it work? What about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – does it play any role in the Speaker selection process? Meanwhile, we turn towards the other Jordan and see the dangers of insecure borders that are inherently hard to defend. Professor Amar explains how this simple fact led him to insights that resulted in a constitutional narrative quite different from those you may have been taught, and which makes certain predictions and conclusions. Does it stand up? We begin a process, which we will return to, of seeing where it leads us. A sweeping episode.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 43 (Show 147): A Tale of Two Jordans
October 18, 2023
Another Speaker stalemate in the House raises constitutional issues galore, and we begin to explore connections with a far-away conflict in the Middle East. CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The House is at it again, and there is no Speaker in the chair as of this recording. So many implications – for Presidential succession, for democratic governance, for legislative stalemate. Meanwhile violence escalates in the Middle East. How are these connected? We explore all these, and Akhil has some fascinating originalist analyses – of history you surely didn’t know; of structural reasons that the Speaker can’t be in the line of succession; and a new textual analysis. Meanwhile – why can’t the House act? Has this happened before? (Hint: yes)
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)