Season 3, Episode 4 (Show 108): The Idaho Murder Case in Constitutional Perspective
January 18, 2023
The horrific events in Idaho have led to a national manhunt, bringing all sorts of constitutional questions into play. Naturally Professor Amar has a take on all of them, which we share with you.
A tragedy in Idaho riveted the nation, as a dragnet, a manhunt, a search of garbage, a DNA test, a bail hearing, an extradition, and much more surrounded the eventual arrest and the onset of legal process in the case. Fortunately, Professor Amar has written on all these subjects, and we travel down these various roads, explaining and navigating their constitutional complexities.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 3 (Show 107): Speaker-ish
January 6, 2023
The House continues frozen in Speaker-less limbo, now for a fourth day. This special episode uploads early so you can be armed with history, structure, rules, and anecdotes to better take in this history in the making.
On this second anniversary of the January 6th insurrection, we’re back early – as promised in our last episode – to help you take in the spectacle underway on the floor of the House of Representatives. We give you the historical background, the constitutional framework, and we look at some of the tactical and political machinations playing out in as close to real time as podcasts allow. We also peek at the still-simmering Santos situation, which takes us back into the law classroom for a look at the classic case of Powell v. McCormack and how it resonates in this situation. This is “next week’s episode” this week to keep you ahead of the game.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 2 (Show 106): January 6, Santos, and The Speaker
January 4, 2023
The new Congress brings all sorts of complexities – a new Speaker (who?), an apparently expellable Representative, and the long- anticipated report of the January 6th Commission. We take them all on.
Two year anniversaries in Washington mean a new Congress, but this year January also brings the echoes and the legacy of January 6. These intertwine most intimately, as the end of the old Congress necessitated the windup of the January 6 Commission, a report, some referrals, and all sorts of constitutional questions. Meanwhile, it also brings a new Speaker election and why should anything be simple in Washington these days? If that wasn’t spicy enough, the usually routine seating of the new House brings Representative-ish Santos to Washington with all of his chameleon-like mendacity. We have to talk a bit about that, too.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 1 (Show 105): Strictly Scrutinizing Moore – Special Guest Kate Shaw
December 28, 2022
Professor Kate Shaw of Cardozo School of Law, and a fellow podcaster (“Strict Scrutiny”), joins us for a wide-ranging discussion of the Court – and offers her perspective on the Moore case.
The third season of Amarica’s Constitution begins with a special guest, as the star of the podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” Professor Kate Shaw, spends an hour with us. Like Andy and Akhil, she attended the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper – as she had attended many arguments when she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens. Her insights on clerking for the Court are particularly timely, since Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in Bush v. Gore, which listeners know has been enjoying a lamentable rehabilitation, it seems, as the Moore case is argued and the infamous case keeps popping up. Professor Shaw also scoops her own podcast with a fascinating insight that links the January 6 commissions actions this past week with the Moore case, and you are there to hear it!
Show Notes:
Season 2, Episode 52 (Show 104): More on Moore – The Oral Argument, Continued
December 21, 2022
We continue our analysis of the oral argument in the ISL case, Moore v. Harper, and address what we consider the heart of the case.
The oral argument in Moore v. Harper lasted approximately three hours. In our last podcast, we began an analysis by tracing some of the advocates’ arguments and justices’ responses. This time, we go to the key questions that lay at the basis of all the back and forth. We answer them, but more than that, we look at their underpinnings and construct a framework in which, we believe, all elements of the case fit together. For your trouble, audience, you will receive a master class in the law of “Fed Courts,” you will hear excerpts from a debate with Professor Amar, and even hear from the dictator of San Marcos.
Show Notes:
Season 2, Episode 51 (Show 103): Mr. Amar Goes to Washington – the Moore v. Harper Oral Argument
December 14, 2022
ISL comes to the Supreme Court at last. Akhil and Andy are present at the arguments; they report on all aspects of the case, with clips, legal analysis, and eyewitness accounts.
After a year of lead-up, Moore vs. Harper has landed at the Supreme Court for oral argument. Akhil and Andy travel to Washington and attend the three hours of argument in the Chamber. We play clips and analyze them – the words, the logic, the briefs, the lawyers, the justices, the clerks, the legal world, as America holds its collective breath while democracy itself hangs in the balance. This is the place for the most nuanced and informed analysis of the positions. This site is your “one stop shopping” whether you are a concerned citizen, a member of the media, or even a Supreme Court clerk or justice.