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:
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:
Season 4, Episode 2 (Show 159): Section Three Goes to Washington
January 10, 2024
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Trump v. Anderson. Akhil is writing an amicus brief. We preview the brief briefly, and take the Justices one by one and discuss how the brief’s arguments may interact with their own judicial styles and temperaments.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica’s Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson. Amicus briefs will pour in – including the brothers Amar’s brief. We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually honest brief-writer can make their best arguments even better by considering how their readers will read them, and what might be most useful to provide to those readers. It’s not quite “handicapping” but it is insightful, as all America is wondering if this case might actually result in the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot, and eventually possibly more states’ ballots as well. It has come to this.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 1 (Show 158): Section Three Punditry: The Good, The Bad, and The Silly
January 3, 2024
The Section Three national debate continues unabated. We bring you the main arguments through a selection of articles and authors, and evaluate them for you. Akhil also brings several new arguments to the table.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The nation awaits the Supreme Court’s seemingly inevitable review of the Section Three case from Colorado, and perhaps Maine as well. Media around the world is weighing in with editorials and op-Ed’s; a smorgasbord of legal, political, and predictive arguments from professors, editors, elected officials, and others with their own range of expertise. We continue our attempt to help you make sense of these by choosing pieces that make the range of arguments out there. We do our best to present their argument and respond to it, bringing Professor Amar’s considerable armamentarium to bear for your benefit. And this week, Akhil has at least two – maybe three – major new ideas he brings to the national discussion. They can be found here first.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 53 (Show 157): The World Turns to Section Three
December 27, 2023
Now that Trump is (potentially) off the ballot in Colorado, Section Three heads to the Supreme Court. We wade through the flood of punditry that has landed, and help you navigate the arguments, issues, and the cases to come.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The Colorado Supreme Court opinion on disqualifying Donald Trump, though long anticipated, landed like a tornado. Op-eds, pundits, academics, officials – all are weighing in. It’s a victory for democracy – no, it’s antidemocratic. Section Three is a dead letter – no, it’s self-executing. Trump is out – no, this helps him. America is reaffirmed – no, there will be violence in the streets. Liberals are split; conservatives are split. What will the Supreme Court do? Spend some time with Amarica’s Constitution and we will help you make sense of it, and we will present the best and worst arguments out there. And – get some CLE for your trouble!
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)