How did the Americans go from loyal British subjects to full-blown revolutionaries? Were the British really that bad, or were the colonists simply overreacting?

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the long and escalating list of grievances that transformed loyal British subjects into determined revolutionaries.

Moving beyond the myths of the Boston Tea Party, they trace a history of constitutional conflict, from the Proclamation of 1763 and the Stamp Act to the Boston Massacre. The conversation reveals how British attempts to reassert control, such as closing the Boston Harbor and dissolving local legislatures, were seen not as legitimate governance but as a fundamental attack on a 150-year tradition of American self-rule.

Discover the compelling "Dominion Theory" that American colonists advanced as a peaceful alternative to independence, and explore the pivotal moment when Britain's heavy-handed response to protest united the colonies and made revolution inevitable. If you've ever wondered whether the Founders were justified in their rebellion, this episode provides the evidence.

Tune in to explore how real grievances, not reckless rebellion, sparked the birth of American independence.

In This Episode

• (00:00) Introduction
• (00:44) Reading the declaration’s grievances
• (02:14) First Continental Congress and the Declaration of Resolves
• (04:29) Second Continental Congress and taking up arms
• (06:36) Lexington and Concord: the first shots
• (08:49) Colonial grievances as reactions to British actions
• (09:25) Colonial-British relations before the French and Indian War
• (10:54) The French and Indian War and its aftermath
• (11:11) Proclamation of 1763 and colonial expansion
• (12:41) New taxes: Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts
• (13:44) Homespun movement and boycotts
• (15:54) Boston Massacre and escalating tensions
• (16:34) The Tea Act and the Boston Tea Party
• (18:37) Internal colonial debate and Sons of Liberty
• (20:36) British reaction: the Intolerable Acts
• (21:39) Impact of the Intolerable Acts on colonial unity
• (22:34) Suspension of local governments and trial rights
• (24:13) Quartering of troops and widespread alarm
• (25:37) The Quebec Act and religious tensions
• (25:58) Why the Intolerable Acts were the breaking point
• (28:11) Dominion theory and alternative constitutional proposals
• (31:00) Missed opportunities for reconciliation
• (33:03) British conduct during the war
• (34:04) Conclusion: Were the British really that bad

Notable Quotes

• (03:21) “The keeping of standing armies in these colonies in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, is against the law.” — Matthew 
• (06:48) “ General Gage... sent out from Boston a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants at Lexington.” — Matthew 
• (13:56) “They would all meet in these spinning clubs and make homespun clothes and really shame other people who were buying any British-made goods.” — Savannah 
• (16:07) “The propaganda wheels are turning. The idea is not only are they taxing us, but now they’re actually shooting us.” — Savannah 
• (21:43) “The effect of this is that Boston’s going to starve. It’s a trade economy. You close Boston Harbor, you destroy the economy.” — Savannah
• (33:13) “They wound up sending German mercenaries, the Hessians  to fight on their behalf, and this actually results in widespread sexual violence against American women.” — Matthew 
• (34:04) “So to answer the question, were the British really that bad? Yes. Yes, they were.” — Savannah 

Have you ever wondered where America’s revolutionary ideas really came from? Was it the genius of the Founders? What if the story of the Constitution didn’t begin in Philadelphia in 1776, but in colonial homes, small-town churches, and the stubborn belief that no one has the right to rule another?

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon trace the folk origins of American self-government. Through the voices of farmers, ministers, and everyday colonists, they uncover how the principles of liberty and equality were not imported from Europe’s philosophers but born from generations of lived experience.

From the self-written laws of the early colonies to the fiery courage of men like Captain Levi Preston, who famously said, “We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to,” this conversation reveals that America’s Revolution was not just a political one. It was deeply personal.

If you think the Declaration of Independence was the start of freedom’s story, think again. This episode examines how the American spirit of self-rule was already alive, thriving, and waiting to be documented.

In This Episode

• (00:18) Introduction to discussion topic
• (00:55) Captain Levi Preston and folk origins
• (02:13) Colonial self-government traditions
• (04:53) 150 years of self-government
• (06:14) Cultural and political ties to Britain
• (07:16) Influence of American colonies on Britain
• (08:58) Speculation on the empire’s future
• (09:39) Radical ideas: No man has a right to rule another
• (10:32) Sam Whittemore’s story and individual action
• (11:26) “A man can stand up” – Johnny Tremain reference
• (13:41) The principle of equality and self-government
• (14:48) Folk origins and pervasiveness of the idea
• (15:26) Contradictions: Slavery and self-government
• (17:28) Revolutionary spread of equality
• (18:10) Inherited and revolutionary aspects
• (19:25) Washington’s change and sentiment revolution
• (20:27) Twin dynamics: Inheritance and improvement
• (22:20) Is self-government core to American identity?
• (22:28) Tocqueville: Freedom and religion
• (24:19) Pragmatic wisdom in the Declaration
• (24:33) Recap and folk origins summary

Notable Quotes

• (01:43) “What we meant in going for those redcoats was this. We always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.” — Captain Levi Preston
• (01:57) “The folk origin of the Declaration, if you will, is to preserve the traditional way of life, which is just to govern yourself, just to be in charge of yourself.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (05:41) “It’s tempting to think of revolution as we start off as British colonies and we gradually become American. Actually, the colonies were very distant, very separate, and very independent from Great Britain in the 17th century.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (06:57) “It’s kind of like you’ve been ignored by your parents and now you’re 17 and suddenly they want to be your parents again, and now you’re ready to be independent.” — Savannah 
• (11:19) “No man has a right to rule another. And you actually brought this up before the podcast, this idea of a man’s right to stand up.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (12:34) “We’re fighting so that a man can stand up.” — Matthew Brogdon quoting James Otis
• (22:30) “The distinctive thing that Americans did, that no one had done in republican societies before us, was we combined the spirit of freedom and the spirit of religion.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (24:40) “The idea of self-government is not new with the Declaration. You said earlier that people didn’t read the Declaration and go, oh really? That’s good to know. No, they already knew this.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

What if the American Revolution didn’t begin in the halls of Congress, but in the pews of colonial churches? 

In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon uncover the spiritual and intellectual fire that helped ignite the Revolution. Before muskets were fired at Lexington and Concord, preachers across New England were already preparing their congregations for rebellion, not just politically but theologically.

From the sermons of Reverend Jonas Clark to the democratic church governance of the Puritans, and from Jonathan Mayhew’s biblical case for resistance to tyranny to Peter Muhlenberg’s dramatic call to arms, Savannah and Matthew trace how America’s revolution was born in the pulpit long before it was fought on the battlefield.

Together, they explore how this Black-Robed Regiment of clergymen bridged faith and politics, shaping the moral vocabulary of liberty that defined the nation’s founding.

In This Episode

• (00:17) Introduction and overview of “The Black Robed Regiment”
• (00:53) Reverend Jonas Clark and the Battle of Lexington
• (04:37) Puritan origins of political liberty and separation of church and state
• (07:14) How congregational church governance shaped early democracy
• (10:21) Thomas Hooker, Connecticut, and the first written constitution
• (17:00) Jonathan Mayhew’s sermon and the theology of rebellion
• (23:19) Samuel Cook’s fearless sermon after the Boston Massacre
• (27:29) Tocqueville, Frederick Douglass, and the moral force of the pulpit
• (32:58) John Witherspoon and Peter Muhlenberg — faith in action
• (38:06) Takeaway: The Revolution began in the pews

Notable Quotes

(00:08:44) “Democratic governance in America didn’t begin in politics. It began in the church.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

(00:24:45) “The bravery it took for Samuel Cook to stare down the loyal governor and call him a tyrant… that’s a different kind of courage.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

(00:25:09) “People say religion and politics should be kept separate. But that view ignores our founding. Religion was the spark.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

(00:20:36) “If obedience to rulers who govern on God’s behalf is obedience to God, then obedience to a tyrant would be obedience to the devil.” — Matthew Brogdon

(00:23:40) “It’s a dangerous thing when theology fuels revolution, but without it, we wouldn’t have political progress.” — Matthew Brogdon

(00:27:55) “Religion in America has always shaped politics—not through force, but through conscience.” — Matthew Brogdon

Season 3 of This Constitution focuses on the people and events surrounding the making of the Declaration of Independence.

What if America’s Revolution had collapsed before it truly began? In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Kevin Weddle, retired U.S. Army colonel, military historian, and author of The Compleat Victory, to explore how George Washington survived the most dangerous year of the war.

From the daring crossing of the Delaware to the humiliating loss of Fort Ticonderoga, Washington faced both battlefield disaster and political backstabbing. Yet, in the fire of 1777, he learned to balance three roles at once: front-line commander, national commander-in-chief, and political strategist. Together, Johnston and Weddle trace how Washington’s leadership in this single year transformed him into the indispensable man of the Revolution and laid the foundation for his presidency.

In This Episode

• (00:11) Introduction and guest welcome
• (01:00) The army on the brink: Washington’s retreat through New Jersey
• (04:10) The “Ten Crucial Days”: Trenton and Princeton victories
• (08:30) Washington’s Fabian strategy and morale revival
• (11:20) Saratoga campaign and the fall of Fort Ticonderoga
• (15:00) Skyler, Gates, and a command crisis in the north
• (20:45) Washington’s reinforcements: Arnold, Lincoln, Morgan’s riflemen
• (27:30) Talent management and leadership lessons
• (31:10) The Conway Cabal and Gates’ political maneuvering
• (36:00) Washington’s confrontation with Conway and political savvy
• (39:00) How Washington neutralized rivals and preserved authority
• (40:35) Lessons of 1777 for Washington’s presidency

Notable Quotes

(05:45) “Just pulling something like that off with an army that’s falling apart—bad morale, desertions everywhere—is brilliant. It’s a tribute to Washington’s leadership.” — Kevin Weddle

(10:01) “It’s considered the ‘Ten Crucial Days’ of the American Revolution because those two victories really turned things around.” — Kevin Weddle

(28:09) “Talent management—that’s exactly what Washington was doing. He knew where the right leaders needed to be, even if it meant sending his best away.” — Kevin Weddle

(33:39) “I think this is a brilliant move on Washington’s part… he goes to Congress and says: I am commander-in-chief. Reinforce it. And they do.” — Kevin Weddle

(39:57) “By eliminating rivals and strengthening his own position, Washington emerged from 1777 not weaker, but indispensable.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

What if America’s greatest strength wasn’t just its leaders, but the way everyday people came together to shape history? In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with Nicholas Cole of Oxford’s Pembroke College, creator of the Quill Project, to dig into the overlooked story of America’s founding.

Far from being the work of a single “lawgiver” like Solon or Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and other revolutionary texts were born out of spirited collaboration. From town halls in Massachusetts to Virginia’s Fairfax Resolves, communities debated, revised, and ultimately claimed ownership over the words that would launch a nation. Cole explains how this culture of deliberation, grand juries, militias, assemblies, and conventions set America apart from revolutions elsewhere, transforming ordinary gatherings into the foundation of popular sovereignty.

Together, Brogdon and Cole trace how these practices not only produced the Declaration but also laid the groundwork for the U.S. Constitution and federal union. They explore how Jefferson’s draft drew on community voices, and how America’s deliberative spirit still shapes our civic life today.

If you’ve ever wondered what truly makes America’s founding unique, this conversation offers a fresh lens and a reminder of the power of collective decision-making.

In This Episode

• (00:11) Introduction and guest welcome
• (00:31) Origins of American deliberation
• (02:14) Jefferson and collective authorship
• (05:04) Spirit of the American Revolution
• (05:51) Colonial and local deliberative traditions
• (09:29) Fairfax Resolves and local assemblies
• (13:01) Community sense and delay of independence
• (14:33) Popular sovereignty and ratification
• (15:43) Variety of deliberative bodies
• (16:39) Parliamentary law and deliberative procedure
• (19:26) Grand juries and public service
• (22:02) Distinguishing public bodies from mobs
• (24:54) Non-importation agreements and authority
• (26:19) Compulsory support and revolutionary action
• (28:04) American Revolution’s distinctiveness
• (30:06) British and American deliberative traditions
• (33:22) Comparisons to English and European precedents
• (34:20) Ancient and English precedents
• (35:42) Crystallization of deliberative traditions
• (37:07) Federal system and popular constitution-making
• (38:26) The Quill Project overview
• (39:38) Quill Project’s Declaration of Independence work
• (41:12) Resource collections and acknowledgments

Notable Quotes

• (01:00) "Before the American Revolution, most constitutions were the product either of accident and force or the wisdom of a lawgiver. America's different. These things are written by groups of people who deliberate and worry about every word." — Nicholas Cole
• (03:01) "All of those things that Jefferson takes credit for are things that he did in concert with other people. He wasn't starting with a completely blank page." — Nicholas Cole
• (04:44) "The idea that human beings do their best work when they act together, that feature of American thought in the 18th century, was one of the things that really captured my interest." — Nicholas Cole
• (16:54) "There was an idea that there was a proper way for groups of people to behave when they were deliberating together. This often went under the name of something like parliamentary law." — Nicholas Cole
• (28:34) "Most revolutions do not look like the American Revolution in this sense. Other alternatives are definitely available." — Nicholas Cole
• (38:58) "The Quill Project is an attempt to help people understand these sometimes very extended and complicated processes of deliberation. You can think of it as kind of track changes for historians." — Nicholas Cole

Did you know that George Washington could have become an American Caesar, but instead chose to walk away from power? Unlike Napoleon or Cromwell, he rejected dictatorship and dynasty, setting the precedent for civilian control of the military, limited executive authority, and the peaceful transfer of power.

In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with eminent historian Jeremy Black to trace Washington’s extraordinary balancing act. From the battlefields of the Revolution to the presidency, Washington navigated fragile institutions, fractious states, and the lure of personal power and, in doing so, set precedents that continue to define American politics.

The conversation explores Washington’s role as a “meritocratic monarch,” how he differed from figures like George III, Napoleon, and Oliver Cromwell, and why his restraint proved essential to building a constitutional republic. They discuss the challenges of commanding a multi-state army, the dangers of potential coups, his deliberate retirement, and the legacy of leadership “for country, not party.”

They also tackle a deeper question: what does Washington’s example teach us about the relationship between military power and constitutional government? His decision to submit force to law, ambition to restraint, and leadership to the service of the people remains one of the defining features of American constitutionalism.

In This Episode

• (00:03) Opening and introduction
• (00:56) Washington as a "meritocratic monarch"
• (02:34) Contrasts with George III and Napoleon
• (04:09) Washington’s challenges with Congress and state governments
• (05:31) Comparison to the French Revolution and use of force
• (07:01) Civilian control of the military: Historical continuity
• (08:20) Presidential power and restraint
• (09:37) Washington’s post-war precedent
• (10:54) Use of force in domestic rebellions
• (12:23) Continuity from military to executive leadership
• (13:04) Constitutional practices in the Continental Army
• (14:48) Managing rivalries and federalism in the army
• (16:12) Geographic shifts in the Revolutionary War
• (17:25) Washington’s political skills and resource allocation
• (19:41) National identity and the crucible of war
• (22:29) Army vs. Navy in American political culture
• (23:48) Washington’s non-autocratic leadership
• (24:32) Washington as American Cincinnatus
• (25:56) Washington’s farewell address and peaceful transfer of power
• (27:44) Conclusion and legacy
• (28:08) Podcast outro and next episode teaser

Notable Quotes

• (01:00) "I see George Washington as a formative figure in America and an example of the best type of what I call a meritocratic monarch." — Jeremy Black
  
  
• (04:13) "Washington does this with enormous skill, not in easy circumstances." — Jeremy Black
  
  
• (08:21) "One of the patterns that derives directly from Washington is that of the subordination of the military to civil authority." — Jeremy Black
  
  
• (08:37) "Washington was not an American Caesar. He did not create himself as a dictator either." — Jeremy Black
  
  
• (19:44) "America is born in the crucible of war, because that defines the boundaries of America." — Jeremy Black
  
  
• (23:06) "The expression of liberty becomes that of serving on land in military forces." — Jeremy Black
  
  
• (27:35) "I think one could say his politics were for the people, for his country, rather than for himself or his party." — Jeremy Black

How did a political system founded by leaders who warned against factions end up making political parties an indispensable part of democracy? And why has the United States remained a two-party nation for nearly two centuries?

In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with political scientist Daniel DiSalvo to trace the fascinating constitutional and political journey of America’s party system. From Jefferson’s “party to end all parties” to Martin Van Buren’s invention of the enduring two-party model, they unpack the forces that created, shaped, and sustained the parties we know today.

The conversation explores how early mechanisms like the “King Caucus” gave way to national conventions, how parties managed (and sometimes suppressed) divisive issues like slavery, and why the two-party system has proven so resilient thanks to first-past-the-post elections, the Electoral College, and state ballot laws.

They also tackle a deeper question: how political parties and the Constitution are in constant tension. The Constitution disperses power through the separation of powers; parties try to assemble it to win and govern. That push-and-pull has defined American politics from the 1790s to the present.

In This Episode

• (00:13) Introduction to Daniel DiSalvo and the study of political parties
• (01:16) Founders’ skepticism toward parties and their early emergence
• (04:30) State governments’ role in shaping elections
• (06:03) The “King Caucus” and constitutional concerns
• (09:44) Jefferson’s “party to end all parties”
• (10:58) Van Buren’s case for permanent parties to avoid sectionalism
• (12:16) National conventions as a political safety valve
• (15:19) Tariffs, internal improvements, and keeping slavery off the agenda
• (18:18) How parties suppressed abolitionist voices
• (20:38) The Republican Party’s rise as the only successful third party
• (24:22) Why the U.S. has a two-party system
• (26:19) First-past-the-post elections and the Electoral College
• (31:13) The appeal (and limits) of the two-party model
• (36:00) Consensus politics in a separated-powers system
• (39:32) Why parties remain essential to democratic accountability

Notable Quotes

• (01:23) "Jefferson's opposition didn't last very long. You could say that maybe his statement shows that many statements in politics are in bad faith, since he still hopes to go to heaven, even though he was one of the founders of the first political party." — Dan DISalvo

• (02:10) "The Constitution, which sets up all these institutions, doesn't specify a way that these offices are gonna get filled up. So how are you gonna get people to be elected to these offices?" — Dan DISalvo

• (03:15) "Parties become the ligaments and the muscles that tie it together, tying citizens to the institutions set up by the Constitution." — Dan DiSalvo

• (06:30) "The process for electing presidents became what was then called the King Caucus, which was what these nascent parties in Congress were." — Dan DiSalvo

• (13:00) "Van Buren's idea is we're going to take away, get rid of this King caucus, and we're going to have this idea of national conventions." — Dan DiSalvo

• (29:00) "The Electoral College system makes it very hard for third parties to get in." — Dan DiSalvo

• (32:30) "In our system, you campaign inside your own party to win a primary election, then you campaign on what you think is good." — Dan DiSalvo

How should a democracy balance the need for independent investigations of government wrongdoing with the president’s constitutional authority over prosecutions? Where do we draw the line?

In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon dig into the fascinating and often murky world of special counsels. From their origins in President Grant’s efforts to distance himself from scandals, to the dramatic moments of the Watergate era and the "Saturday Night Massacre," the history of special counsels is anything but straightforward.

They break down the creation of independent counsels under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a powerful legal framework that was later undone by high-profile investigations like Iran-Contra and the Clinton impeachment. Fast forward to today, and the special counsel role has become a battleground for constitutional debate, raising tough questions about who holds the power to fire them and when.

Matthew makes a compelling argument for why prosecutorial power must remain politically accountable, warning against a future where legal battles spiral beyond the courts’ control. They wrap up the episode with a powerful reminder to rethink our reliance on legally ambiguous mechanisms and consider the Constitution’s built-in safeguards, like impeachment, as a much-needed check on power.

Tune in for an eye-opening dive into the constitutional tension between justice and executive authority.

In This Episode

• (00:15) Topic Introduction and definition of special counsels
• (01:16) Historical origins: Grant and Roosevelt
• (01:57) Watergate and Nixon: The rise of controversy
• (03:37) The Saturday night massacre
• (06:03) Aftermath of Watergate: Impeachment and resignation
• (07:14) Constitutional issues: Executive power and accountability
• (09:53) The Ethics in Government Act of 1978
• (11:31) Independent counsel vs. special counsel: Key differences
• (12:44) Scope and jurisdiction of independent counsel
• (14:35) Controversies: Iran-Contra and Whitewater
• (15:05) Supreme Court and Morrison v. Olson
• (17:20) Problems with removal and accountability
• (20:48) Expiration of the independent counsel statute
• (25:38) Return to special counsels: DOJ regulations
• (26:52) The Mueller investigation and modern special counsels
• (29:12) Removal and oversight of special counsels
• (31:51) Unresolved constitutional questions
• (33:23) Political vs. legal controls: Impeachment and accountability
• (37:38) Checks and balances: Political structure vs. legal process

Notable Quotes

• (09:07) "The prosecutorial power is a very dangerous power. Even if you can't get a conviction, to bring an indictment and to pursue a prosecution against someone can ruin their life." — Matthew Brogdon

• (12:26) "The independent counsel has, quote, full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of The Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice." — Matthew Brogdon

• (34:09) "I think the founding generation expected the impeachment power to be a far more widely utilized power. That's been extremely rare. And I think we've actually underutilized it." — Matthew Brogdon

• (37:43) "Checks and balances work best when you lean into their political structure. They're inherently political structure, and they get really murky, and we get lots of problems or potential problems when we ignore that structure in favor of a more legal structure and rely more on the courts." — Savannah Eccles Johnston

When we hear “impeachment,” most of us immediately think: the President. But what if that’s only part of the story? In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore the lesser-known history of impeaching cabinet secretaries and other executive officials, revealing how the process has always been more political than legal.

They revisit the case of Secretary of War William Belknap, who resigned in tears in 1876, hoping to dodge impeachment—only to face it anyway. Fast-forward to 2024, and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is at the center of a modern-day controversy that reopens the same unresolved questions. Can officials be impeached after they’ve left office? What actually qualifies as a “high crime or misdemeanor”? And who decides?

Through historical case studies, sharp legal insight, and a few surprising turns (including George Washington daring Congress to impeach him), this episode digs into how impeachment functions as a tool of accountability—and a reflection of the political moment.

If you think impeachment is just about criminal wrongdoing, think again. This conversation will shift how you view one of the Constitution’s most powerful and misunderstood mechanisms.

In This Episode

• (00:13) Introduction and overview
• (00:59) Impeachment process and constitutional ambiguity
• (02:52) Impeaching former officials: The Belknap case
• (05:32) Impeachment after resignation: Nixon and precedents
• (07:50) Trump’s second impeachment and unresolved legal questions
• (08:21) Senate jurisdiction and the Blount case
• (11:30) Defining high crimes and misdemeanors: Johnson’s impeachment
• (13:07) Political vs. legal grounds for impeachment
• (15:23) Impeachment standards for judges vs. executives
• (16:12) Early impeachment threats: Washington and the Jay Treaty
• (17:39) Modern debates: Mayorkas's impeachment and political disputes
• (19:19) Impeachment responsibility: Cabinet secretaries vs. presidents
• (22:32) Impeachment as a congressional tool
• (23:16) Impeachment’s political nature and checks and balances
• (24:36) Impeachment vs. criminal prosecution
• (27:05) Conclusion: Impeachment’s role in American government

Notable Quotes

• (00:43) "When it comes to executive impeachments, we have a history of failed impeachments." — Savannah
• (03:01) "Can you impeach former government officials? The Constitution does not tell us... This is something that had to be figured out in the moment that it became an issue." — Savannah 
• (05:10) "I just hope at some point in my life I can find an occasion to look at an office holder and say, you have prostituted your high office out of a lust for private gain." — Matthew
• (06:43) "Impeachment is not just about removing people from office. It's also about the possibility of excluding them or disqualifying them from future office holding." — Matthew 
• (17:05) "Washington was saying, impeach me if you think I can't be trusted and I violated the public interest in negotiating this treaty." — Matthew 
• (26:29) "One use for impeachment is to remove a president so that he can be successfully criminally charged." — Savannah 
• (27:07) "Impeachment is a tool in the checks and balances toolbox when it comes to working out disputes between the branches." — Matthew 

In This Episode

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore one of the least understood and most powerful tools in the U.S. Constitution: impeachment. But forget presidents for now, this episode dives deep into judicial impeachments: how they work, why they're rare, and why judges have historically been the ones who get removed.

Savannah and Matthew unpack what it means for Congress to wield this political sword, why it's not a criminal process, and how colorful cases like Samuel Chase and Alcee Hastings shaped our understanding of judicial accountability. Along the way, they raise big questions about what "high crimes and misdemeanors" really means—and whether just being bad at your job is enough to get you booted off the bench.

• (00:00:13) Introduction to judicial impeachment and constitutional process
• (00:01:00) The House indicts, the Senate convicts
• (00:02:23) Impeachment is a political, not criminal process
• (00:03:42) The Senate as jury and the role of the Chief Justice
• (00:05:13) Historical focus: judges, not presidents
• (00:05:58) Corruption, perjury, and Florida judges
• (00:06:29) Why cabinet members get fired but judges get impeached
• (00:07:00) Life tenure vs. good behavior
• (00:08:00) Samuel Chase and the partisan bench
• (00:10:00) The Jeffersonian purge of the courts
• (00:12:00) Why Chase avoided conviction
• (00:13:30) Fast forward to Alcee Hastings (and yes, Florida again)
• (00:14:30) No conviction? No problem—still impeached
• (00:15:20) Hastings’s comeback as a Congressman
• (00:17:00) Can you impeach just for bad rulings?
• (00:18:13) Defining “high crimes and misdemeanors”
• (00:20:00) Bad judgment vs. misconduct
• (00:21:26) The Senate is the ultimate check
• (00:24:01) The case of Judge Pickering and judicial incompetence
• (00:26:05) Balancing judicial independence with accountability
• (00:28:00) Why judicial impeachments are so rare and so hard

Notable Quotes

(00:03:00) "Though this is set up like a criminal trial, it’s important to note this is a political process. This is not a criminal process." — Savannah Eccles Johnston

(00:07:05) "You only get to hold this office as long as you behave yourself. And there’s a way to get rid of you if not." — Matthew Brogdon

(00:12:25) "Had they impeached Chase, it would’ve telegraphed to the court: if you act like a partisan hack on the bench, we will kick you off." — Matthew Brogdon

(00:15:00) "He’s no longer a judge, but Florida elects him to Congress. So I guess… he wins?" — Savannah Eccles Johnston

(00:18:57) "High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution. But 'misdemeanor' back then just meant to misbehave." — Matthew Brogdon

(00:26:05) "There is a fine balance between judicial independence and oversight by Congress. And impeachment is the only tool Congress has." — Savannah Eccles Johnston

Resources and Links

This Constitution  

• https://bit.ly/4fYWnVi

Savannah Eccles Johnston

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/savannah-eccles-johnston-515a72198/
• https://www.instagram.com/savypolitics/

Matthew Brogdon

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon-8a21bb89
• https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html