
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


We discuss an op-ed Jack published in the New York Times this morning in which he argued that much of the aggressive action Trump 2.0 is taking stems from similar, but less extreme, actions in prior presidencies. He contended that the Supreme Court and Congress have some capacity to limit the dangers of “presidencies run amok,” but that a constitutional amendment might be necessary to impose sufficient constraints.
By Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith4.4
77 ratings
We discuss an op-ed Jack published in the New York Times this morning in which he argued that much of the aggressive action Trump 2.0 is taking stems from similar, but less extreme, actions in prior presidencies. He contended that the Supreme Court and Congress have some capacity to limit the dangers of “presidencies run amok,” but that a constitutional amendment might be necessary to impose sufficient constraints.

4,113 Listeners

1,380 Listeners

1,110 Listeners

2,031 Listeners

6,304 Listeners

7,244 Listeners

4,650 Listeners

5,832 Listeners

3,946 Listeners

16,525 Listeners

399 Listeners

746 Listeners

457 Listeners

431 Listeners

804 Listeners