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 addressed by the Court, 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 avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths.  This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

What the Oral Argument Should Have Said - Part 2

Professor Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of the nation's leading authorities on the Constitution, offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day.  He is joined by co-host Andy Lipka and guests drawn from other top experts including Bob Woodward, Nina Totenberg, Neal Katyal, Lawrence Lessig, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.

Education

Training

Language Courses

Higher Education

K-12

Educational Technology

History

Society & Culture

News

Politics

The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East.  Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen.  We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution.  This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

Big Mouth on Campus

More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito.  Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned.  We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one.

Flags of Our Spouses

Donald Trump’s New York trial - where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof - has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amar’s star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial?  You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, there’s a lot to discuss there as well.  CLE credit is available from pdcast.njsba.com after listening.

Trials, Pardons, and Elephants

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States).  Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse.  Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges.  Clarity on the argument emerges.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Immunity versus The Rule of Law

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution.  We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler:  NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks.  There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

What the Oral Argument Should Have Said - Part 2

Download our free app to listen on your phone