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 37 (Show 194): The Devil You Know

September 11, 2024

A recent New York Times article questions the value of the Constitution, suggesting it may be more a danger to the Union than its salvation.  We discuss.

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

The New York Times looks at the Constitution as an allegedly anti-democratic, divisive, secession-promoting document.  They bring authority to bolster their case in the person of the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky.  We take a close look at this article and the arguments it employs.  This takes us to the center of the Constitution’s purposes, of course to questions of originalism, as well as an analysis of what sort of democracy the Constitution protects, and what sort it might protect against.

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 36 (Show 193): Your Turn

September 4, 2024

We take your questions, from the size of the House to the impact of the immunity decision, and more.

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

It’s time for your questions, and having a great audience means there are so many fascinating directions to go.  A Canadian listener tells of how a non-originalist purpose-oriented approach to constitutional law works for them – why not in the US?  We go in a different direction when we consider the wisdom of increasing the size of the House of Representatives.  Still another asks about whether the presidential immunity decision has undermined some fundamental aspects of criminal law, not to mention one of the Court’s greatest moments – the Nixon tapes case.  Keep those questions coming!

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 35 (Show 192): The Kennedy Shame and Schumer’s Folly – Special Guest Ruth Marcus

August 28, 2024

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post joins us for a serious look at Leader Schumer’s attempt to regulate the Court after the immunity case; meanwhile, RFK Jr. withdraws and Akhil comments.

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

RFK Jr. has withdrawn from the race and endorsed Trump. This meeting of an estranged Kennedy and an indicted Trump, is laced not only with strangeness but also constitutional themes, as we explore.  Meanwhile, backlash after the Trump immunity opinion continues, and Senate Majority Leader Schumer has introduced legislation in response.  The great Washington Post columnist, Ruth Marcus, returns to our podcast to comment on this legislation and the many serious implications it would have if adopted, as well as the issues it raises for consideration even if it fails, as it seems likely to do.

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 34 (Show 191): Circuit of Shame

August 21, 2024

The Fifth Circuit, already notorious, had a remarkable record of reversal by the Supreme  Court, complete with harsh rhetoric, in the last term. We explore that as well as circuit-supreme relations in general – and more.

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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has been overruled by the Supreme Court more often, and more forcefully, than any other circuit during the past term.  Why?  What are the consequences for the judges of the Fifth Circuit, if any?  Is this a problem for our judicial system, and if so, are there any remedies available?  Listeners to Amarica’s Constitution will not be surprised to learn that Professor Amar has some ideas on this topic.  He also grounds the problems and the solutions in history and structure, and lest one think this is a partisan attack on a conservative court, he tells of his past criticism of the then-ultra-liberal ninth circuit for analogous behavior. 

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 33 (Show 190): Term Limits Made Workable

August 14, 2024

This week we dissect Professor Amar’s own plan for 18 year Supreme Court “so called” term limits, and put it under the microscope as we did for the other plans before Congress.

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

Court reform is in the air.  Having presented the problems with the 18 year term proposals before the House and Senate, Professor Amar’s plan deserves its own scrutiny.  We therefore present the plan in detail, explaining the problems that it attempts to solve, the principles it attempts to uphold, and the criticisms it might attract. Since it is a proposal and not yet a statute, it is subject to modification and hopefully improvement, so we invite the audience to chime in with your own critiques and suggestions.  Let’s keep the conversation going.

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 32 (Show 189): How To Get To 18 Years

August 7, 2024

President Biden has announced his Court reform plans, and though short of details, it sounds the 18 year “term limits” bell that we have advocated. So, we analyze.

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

The 2021 Biden Commission on the Court has now led – with a big “assistance” from the Court itself – to President Biden’s own plan for Court reform. It is sketchy in many ways, but is entirely consistent with Professor Amar’s long-held views on 18 year active terms for Supreme Court justices, though the President’s proposal lacks the detail of that plan. This is unsurprising in a way since Prof. Amar testified before that Commission.  There are other related plans in proposed statutes that lie in committees of the House and Senate.  We consider the features of all, the flaws we have diagnosed, and we also have some commentary on some other aspects of the President’s proposals, including a possible constitutional amendment.  Lots to consider this week!

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

Show Notes: