Executive Agreements vs. Treaties: Skirting the Constitution?

What makes a treaty binding? Who holds the power to shape U.S. foreign policy, the President or the Senate?

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the constitutional roots and modern challenges of the U.S. treaty-making process. From Washington's awkward Senate visit to Wilson’s League of Nations failure, they trace the battle over presidential diplomacy and legislative oversight.

The conversation moves from 18th-century compromise to 21st-century executive agreements, exploring how the Constitution’s sparse language on treaties has led to decades of political, legal, and procedural improvisation.

If you’ve ever wondered why the Senate approves treaties, how executive agreements avoid that step, or whether a president can unilaterally exit NATO, this episode is for you.

Key Takeaways

• The treaty power is constitutionally assigned to the President with Senate oversight requiring two-thirds Senate approval.
• Historical precedent, including Washington’s early attempt at direct consultation, has shaped today’s treaty process as more formal and less collaborative.
• Executive agreements are not constitutionally equivalent to treaties but have become a common tool for presidents to shape foreign policy without Senate approval.
• Whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty (like NATO) remains a legally unresolved question with major implications for the separation of powers.
• The rise of executive agreements reflects both practical political realities and blurred constitutional boundaries, raising questions about long-term democratic accountability.
• Courts have largely avoided intervening in treaty termination and executive agreements, often treating them as political questions.
• Despite growing reliance on executive agreements, if a nation wants a lasting and enforceable deal with the U.S., it still needs a treaty.

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Introduction to treaty power
• (00:00:30) Debate at the Constitutional Convention
• (00:01:04) Hamilton’s push for executive diplomacy
• (00:03:22) Washington’s failed in-person treaty consultation
• (00:05:22) The Jay Treaty and Senate consent precedent
• (00:09:00) Wilson, the League of Nations, and the Senate backlash
• (00:13:35) Mutual defense and declaring war
• (00:20:45) Can a president leave NATO?
• (00:23:49) Carter, Taiwan, and Goldwater v. Carter
• (00:27:48) Executive agreements vs. treaties
• (00:32:00) Senate’s quiet acceptance of executive agreements
• (00:35:08) Recap of constitutional treaty principles

Notable Quotes

[00:03:48] "This is the only time that Washington sort of loses his cool in public as president… he winds up storming out of the Senate chamber." — Matthew Brogdon

[00:07:18] "Washington basically says, 'I tried that. That doesn’t work. All you get to do is say yes or no.'" — Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:12:42] "The Constitution puts the Senate in the president's sandbox whenever it comes to the treaty power." — Matthew Brogdon

[00:19:35] "So much of America’s interactions with the world are kind of weird because we act as if the president has unilateral authority on foreign affairs—and he doesn’t." — Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:24:55] "We had a treaty obligation to Taiwan... In order to establish diplomatic relations with China, we had to rescind any recognition of Taiwan." — Matthew Brogdon

[00:31:11] "Any future president can just disregard or ignore [an executive agreement]... It’s a commitment of that particular president." — Matthew Brogdon

A Supreme Court justice serves for life, no term limits. No reelection. Almost no way to remove them. So… who decides who gets that kind of power?

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore the constitutional design, evolution, and growing controversy of judicial confirmations. From the first public hearing 1916 to today’s highly publicized nomination battles, they unpack how these confirmations have transformed from quiet votes to political showdowns.

The conversation ranges from history to process to philosophy—covering why lifetime judicial appointments raise the stakes, how public hearings shape political narratives, and why the Supreme Court has become such a powerful player in our democracy.

Whether you're a court watcher or a civic nerd, this episode offers insights into the tensions, strategies, and consequences of placing judges on the highest bench in the land. Let’s dive in!

In This Episode

• (00:00:00)  Introduction to judicial confirmations  
• (00:00:30)  Constitutional requirement for Senate consent  
• (00:01:24)  Historical context of confirmation hearings  
• (00:02:27)  Judicial independence and impeachment  
• (00:04:25)  Checks and balances in the confirmation process  
• (00:06:01)  Limitations of Senate confirmation  
• (00:08:48)  Congressional control over judiciary  
• (00:10:14)  Lengthy confirmation processes  
• (00:12:24)  Judicial confirmation process explained  
• (00:13:31)  Evolution of confirmation norms  
• (00:16:05)  Qualifications for Supreme Court justices  
• (00:17:29)  Politics in the nomination process  
• (00:18:37)  Partisanship in judicial confirmations  
• (00:19:11)  Historical context of confirmation battles  
• (00:20:04)  Consequences of judicial confirmations  
• (00:21:48)  Judicial philosophy debates  
• (00:25:31)  Public nature of confirmation hearings  
• (00:26:42)  Streamlining the confirmation process  
• (00:28:28)  Youth of recent nominees  
• (00:28:56)  Making the Supreme Court less important 

Notable Quotes

• [00:02:07] "The stakes are much higher here than for executive confirmations because members of the judiciary serve for life, and the only way to get rid of them is an extremely costly process of impeachment." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:07:42] "You really can't control them. They serve for life once they are appointed. These are unelected gods on Mount Olympus. They can kind of do a lot of things, and you can't punish them a whole lot outside of impeachment." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:05:24] "The biggest engine of change in American constitutional law, if you want to change the law, you change the judges. That happens through judicial appointments in our system." — Matthew Brogdon
• [00:21:48] "What is it about a change in constitutional law? That’s a new thing. It’s a fight over judicial philosophy. Maybe that is new. I’m not sure if it is, but I’ve heard arguments that what is new isn’t partisanship; it’s the rift in judicial philosophy." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:20:04] "What matters for whether a particular confirmation battle is contentious is its consequences. What’s at stake in that confirmation? If there’s not much at stake, nobody’s going to expend tons of political capital fighting over somebody who’s not going to change the way the law works." — Matthew Brogdon
• [00:26:47] "I would get rid of public hearings in a hot minute. Public confirmation hearings are just not helpful. The public aspect of it is the most time-consuming, the most contentious, and the least productive of it all." —

Why did the American Revolution begin with armed conflict in 1775, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence? What was the significance of Lexington and Concord, and how did these events set the stage for what would become a bitter struggle for independence? In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon is joined by renowned historian Professor Jeremy Black to dive deep into the history of these pivotal moments.

Together, they explore how the conflict in Lexington and Concord was not just about a small skirmish but the spark that ignited the broader American Revolution. They discuss the political, social, and military context, the role of loyalists, and the challenges faced by both the British and colonists as they reluctantly moved toward war.

With historical anecdotes, constitutional analysis, and insightful perspectives on the American struggle for independence, this episode provides a comprehensive understanding of one of the most critical moments in American history.

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Introduction to the significance of Lexington and Concord
• (00:01:24) The context of 1775: Why the Revolution began a year before 1776
• (00:03:00) The causes of the conflict: The British attempt to seize weapons
• (00:05:15) Loss of civilian control and the rise of military governance in Boston
• (00:07:45) The cultural and political divides in the American colonies
• (00:09:00) The role of loyalists and differing views on rebellion
• (00:11:10) The Boston Tea Party’s impact and how it shaped colonial resistance
• (00:13:00) The militarization of the British response post-Boston Tea Party
• (00:16:20) How the events of 1775 escalated into broader conflict
• (00:18:30) The significance of bravery at Lexington and Concord
• (00:21:00) The broader implications of the early American victories
• (00:23:00) The transition from political resistance to full-blown war
• (00:25:00) Conclusion: How Lexington and Concord set the stage for the American Revolution

Notable Quotes

[00:01:24]
 "What went wrong was, as we all know, a British attempt to take over an illegal arms dump leads to resistance." – Jeremy Black

[00:18:30]
 "It shows considerable fortitude, and I think fortitude is a key element because some people were clearly, we know from all sorts of an analysis of people that fight, that many of them are frightened, some of them are terrified." – Jeremy Black

[00:21:00]
 "The regulars were also brave men, and we should never forget that." – Jeremy Black

[00:19:00] 

"What I'm gaining from your description of this is that the American Revolution presents us with a kind of tension. We've had an American identity that developed through a kind of self-government that had happened in some colonies in New England for 150 years, since the 1630s." -Matthew Brogdon

Resources and Links

This Constitution  

• https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485
• https://www.youtube.com/@centerforconstitutionalstu8915/videos

Jeremy Black 

https://jeremyblackhistorian.wordpress.com/

Matthew Brogdon

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

Why does the President need the Senate’s approval to appoint people to the executive branch? Why is it so hard to get those people confirmed? And has the whole process become more about political theater than public service?

In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the constitutional roots and modern realities of executive confirmations. They explore how this check on presidential power has evolved over time, starting from full floor debates to closed-door committees and now, into viral, made-for-TV public hearings.

Savannah and Matthew explain why Senate confirmation was never a given, how firing power differs from hiring power, and what makes this process both essential and inefficient. They also take on key issues: Are there too many confirmable positions? Is the Senate spending too much time playing politics instead of governing? And is reform even possible?

With historical anecdotes, constitutional insight, and present-day implications, this episode offers a comprehensive look at how and why executive confirmations matter more than ever.

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Introduction to executive confirmations
• (00:00:29) Why Senate participation is required
• (00:01:24) Historical context: Presidential vs. royal appointments
• (00:03:00) The power to fire vs. the power to hire
• (00:04:50) The idea of life-tenure appointments and Smith’s proposal
• (00:06:27) Rise of committees and public hearings
• (00:07:45) Progressive Era and distrust in party machines
• (00:08:46) Congress asserting itself post-Civil War (1868)
• (00:09:56) Volume and backlog: 1100+ roles, 500+ unfilled
• (00:10:29) What the modern confirmation process looks like
• (00:11:18) Three overburdened Senate committees
• (00:12:15) Should we reduce the number of confirmable roles?
• (00:14:39) Reform ideas: Time limits, Senate scheduling
• (00:15:58) Cloture votes, the filibuster, and slowdowns
• (00:17:00) Cabinet delays: Then vs. now (Bush to Biden)
• (00:19:00) Committee triaging: Prioritizing key departments
• (00:20:46) Controversial roles and unfilled posts
• (00:21:46) Partisanship and personal political ambition
• (00:22:46) Historical examples of rejected or withdrawn nominees
• (00:23:54) Are public hearings useful or just performative?
• (00:27:00) Final thoughts on checks, balances, and reform

Notable quotes

[00:02:08]

"This quality control matters here in this process. We're making sure that people who hold these positions of immense public trust are verified, decent, capable, competent people." —Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:03:32]

"The Constitution only has one thing to say about removing people from office, and that is the impeachment power… but it’s really a nuclear option." —Matthew Brogdon

State vs. Federal Power: How Identity Shapes American Democracy

Do you feel more Texan than American? If you had to choose, would you say you’re a Texan first and an American second? What about an Alaskan, a New Yorker, or a Californian? For much of U.S. history, people identified more with their state than the nation itself—and in many places, that state pride still runs deep.

But does state identity actually shape the way we govern? Can it influence trust in government, political engagement, and even pushback against federal laws? 

In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Emily Pears, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, to explore how federalism and state identities continue to influence American governance. The discussion kicks off with a historical look at how early Americans identified more with their states than the nation, a dynamic the founders leveraged to balance power between state and federal governments.  

Dr. Pears explains that while state identities have weakened, they still shape political behavior—affecting trust in state governments and fueling resistance to federal authority in states like Texas, Alaska, and Utah. She highlights real-world examples, such as the legalization of marijuana in 24 states despite federal prohibition and Utah’s Sovereignty Act, which challenges federal intervention. Rather than outright rejecting federal laws, states are testing the limits of their authority, maintaining a delicate constitutional balance.  

Looking ahead, Dr. Pears foresees the need for civic education to help Americans understand federalism and engage more actively in state governance.  

Tune in for this fascinating conversation on how state identities continue to shape American democracy.

In This Episode

(00:00:03) Introduction to the episode
(00:00:15) The Constitution as a blueprint
 (00:00:27) Introduction to Dr. Emily
 (00:01:15) State identities at the founding
 (00:02:27) Federalism and state power
 (00:03:57) Relevance of state identities today
 (00:05:22) Personal state identity
 (00:05:55) State identity in Texas
 (00:06:27) State identity in Utah
 (00:08:06) Role of state identities in checks and balances
 (00:09:33) Impact of weak state identities
 (00:11:21) Partisanship and state identity
 (00:14:22) Examples of state pushback
 (00:15:42) State authority and federal intervention
 (00:16:29) Understanding nullification
 (00:17:12) Marijuana laws and state responses
 (00:18:33) Testing federal authority
 (00:20:01) Future of state power
 (00:21:39) Importance of federalism
 (00:22:08) Civic education and state awareness
 (00:23:56) State identity as a unifying factor
 (00:25:32) Engaging with state identity

Notable Quotes

• [00:01:22] "At the time of the American founding, there were these really strong state identities and almost no national identity. The citizens thought of themselves as Virginians, not as Americans." — Dr. Emily Pears

• [00:20:01] "Does the federal government have enough strong national identifiers who want to say no, it's important that we adhere to what the federal government says, even when it's a policy that we think is silly or, or sort of don't want to adhere to? " — Dr. Emily Pears

• What we found is that state identity can be a sort of cross-cutting identity. So in a political world where it seems like all that matters is your partisanship, we found that Democrats and Republicans are sort of equally likely to identify with their states. — Dr. Emily Pears

What if the very system designed to keep our leaders in check… is starting to fail?

In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon kick off Season 2 with a deep dive into the delicate balance of power in the U.S. government. They break down the difference between checks and balances and the separation of powers—two critical mechanisms that prevent tyranny.

Through fascinating historical moments like FDR’s court-packing plan and Nixon’s resignation, they reveal how these principles have been tested over time. But what about today? With rising partisanship and a weakened Congress, are we at risk of losing the safeguards that keep our democracy intact?

Join the conversation and discover why your voice matters in upholding these fundamental protections. Listen now and stay engaged in the fight for a balanced government!

In This Episode

• (00:00:27) Introduction to Season Two
• (00:01:12) Importance of Checks and Balances
• (00:01:26) Distinction Between Concepts
• (00:02:08) Separation of Powers Explained
• (00:02:12) Checks and Balances Explained
• (00:03:27) Historical Context of Governance
• (00:04:06) Ambition and Self-Interest
• (00:07:19) Montesquieu's Influence
• (00:09:07) Constitutional Checks and Balances
• (00:10:24) Presidential Powers Against Congress
• (00:12:02) Impeachment Power Discussion
• (00:12:23) Judicial Review Explained
• (00:13:18) The Rule of Law and Judicial Process
• (00:14:11) Checks on Supreme Court Power
• (00:15:13) FDR's Court Packing Plan
• (00:16:12) Response from the Senate Judiciary Committee
• (00:17:14) FDR's Overestimation of Support
• (00:18:26) Checks and Balances in Action
• (00:22:29) The Nixon Administration Scandal
• (00:24:07) Supreme Court's Role in Nixon's Case
• (00:25:36) Goldwater's Intervention
• (00:26:25) Challenges to Checks and Balances Today
• (00:27:38) Exploring Congress's Weakness
• (00:27:50) Presidential Influence on Congress
• (00:28:08) Role of Voters in Checks and Balances
• (00:28:45) Public Attachment to Constitutional Principles
• (00:28:56) Civic Education and Public Perception
• (00:29:54) Improving Constitutional Education

Notable Quotes

• [00:04:06] "Checks and balances work because John Thune, who's the Senate Majority Leader, wants to be as personally powerful as possible, and he knows that his power is only as great as the power of his institution." — Savannah Eccles Johnston

• [00:05:12] "You can have people who are all pursuing good things at the same time, and the pursuit of those good things could come in conflict." — Matthew Brogdon

• [00:14:11] "The best moments in American political history are when two institutions, or even just one, turn and look at the overreaching institution and say, 'Keep them in their place.'" — Savannah Eccles Johnston

• [00:28:56] "People do need a public attachment to things for them to be lasting and durable, and I'm afraid that the way we teach the American government might be a little bit guilty here." — Matthew Brogdon

Resources and Links

This Constitution  

• https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485
• https://www.youtube.com/@centerforconstitutionalstu8915/videos

How can the words of a 16th-century playwright possibly hold the key to understanding American governance today? The answer may lie in the very heart of classical education—a time-tested foundation for thoughtful leadership and civic responsibility. Shakespeare’s plays, brimming with powerful depictions of power, virtue, and moral conflict, weren’t just created to entertain; they were crafted to challenge the mind and educate the soul.

In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Dr. Carol McNamara, the director of the Great Hearts Institute for Classical Education, to unravel the profound connections between Shakespeare’s works and the values that shaped our nation. Together, they explore how classical education, particularly through literature like Shakespeare’s, illuminates the role of governance, virtue, and civic engagement in a thriving democracy. Dr. McNamara reveals how Shakespeare’s exploration of political regimes, from absolute monarchy to the Roman Republic, sheds light on the complexities of leadership, while also emphasizing the importance of an informed citizenry.

Could it be that by revisiting the classics, we find the very principles that can guide us toward better governance? Tune in to discover how the timeless wisdom of Shakespeare and classical education can shape the leaders of tomorrow, and why it’s more relevant than ever in understanding our civic duties today.

In This Episode

• (00:40) Introduction to Dr. Carol McNamara
• (00:59) Overview of the Great Hearts Institute
• (02:40) Expansion of classical charter schools
• (04:04) Importance of a holistic education
• (06:18) Formation of character in education
• (07:35) Integration of knowledge disciplines
• (08:55) Adaptability in education
• (10:15) Shakespeare's political project
• (12:43) Exploring alternative regimes in Shakespeare
• (15:18) Commercial republic and difference
• (16:44) The civilizational struggle
• (17:46) Shakespeare's perspective on regimes
• (18:20) Shakespeare's exploration of tyranny
• (18:50) Mixed regimes in Shakespeare's works
• (21:04) Historical context of Coriolanus
• (22:10) Coriolanus and political tragedy
• (24:02) Lincoln's appreciation for Shakespeare
• (26:34) The role of ordinary citizens in Much Ado About Nothing
• (27:49) Shakespeare's unique talent
• (29:50) Ordinary life and comic potential
• (31:47) Closing remarks

Notable Quotes

• [03:52] "I think the demand for classical education is only going to grow as parents demand better education, better discussion, better study of books for their children." — Dr. Carol McNamara

• [05:19] "Classical education is about the formation of the human person, involving the education of the mind through the study of ideas, literature, and moral philosophy, but also the formation of human character." — Dr. Carol McNamara

• [18:20] "Everybody wants to claim Shakespeare as their own, but for me, what matters are the plays and the arguments in the plays." — Dr. Carol McNamara

• [20:56] "He wants us to realize that politics always comes back, that we always have to pay attention to the demands of politics." — Dr. Carol McNamara

• [28:53] "Shakespeare wants to say that ordinary life sorts itself out in a way that doesn't have to be tragic; we can just choose to live well and be happy." — Dr. Carol McNamara

Our Guest

Dr. Carol McNamara is the Director of the Great Hearts Institute for Classical Education, where she leads initiatives to renew classical education. Previously, she held key roles at Arizona State University, including Senior Director at the Center for Constit

Mercy Otis Warren was no ordinary figure in America’s founding story. How many women of her time had the opportunity to receive a classical education, let alone become influential political thinkers and writers? As one of the few, Warren used her intellect and talent to champion liberty during the American Revolution. But why is her name so often left out of the history books?

In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Kirstin Birkhaug, assistant professor of political science at Hope College, to uncover the life and work of this revolutionary thinker. What made her writings so impactful that even John Adams admitted to feeling intimidated by her intellect? How did her radical views on liberty shape her critiques of the U.S. Constitution, and what can they teach us in today’s political climate?

During the conversation, Matthew and Kristin delve into  Warren’s enduring legacy—her critiques of unchecked power, her defense of individual rights, and her advocacy for civic virtue. It also addresses her political affiliations and relationships with prominent figures like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, clarifying her alignment with Jefferson’s ideals and the complexities of her evolving relationship with Adams, which transitioned from initial camaraderie to tension.

In This Episode

• (00:00:37) Introduction to Mercy Otis Warren
• (00:01:32) Early life and education
• (00:03:33) Marriage and political influence
• (00:05:49) Mercy's literary career begins
• (00:06:47) Correspondence with prominent figures
• (00:07:15) James Warren's political role
• (00:07:58) Mercy's plays and political commentary
• (00:09:24) Conflict with Thomas Hutchinson
• (00:10:56) Use of pen names
• (00:12:52) The History of the American Revolution
• (00:15:15) The role of memory in Warren's history
• (00:16:23) Warren's concerns about Washington
• (00:17:33) Warren's Critique of the Constitution
• (00:19:51) Warren's observations on the new Constitution
• (00:21:16) Massachusetts ratification convention
• (00:23:15) Warren's advocacy for press freedom
• (00:24:37) Warren's civic engagement perspective
• (00:26:58) Warren's Lockean influences
• (00:29:56) Introduction to Freedom
• (00:30:15) Mercy Otis Warren's political context
• (00:31:07) Warren's alignment with Jefferson
• (00:32:07) Warren and Adams' fractured relationship
• (00:33:23) Reconciliation of Adams and Warren

Notable Quotes

• [00:03:33] "I feel a sense of inferiority whenever I speak to you; I feel that your attainments dwarf those of most men." — Kirstin Birkhaug
• [00:04:44] "Mercy kind of takes up the mantle of continuing his kind of progressive thoughts and ideas into the revolution and beyond." — Kirstin Birkhaug
• [00:12:06] "Warren is caught between this intellect that pulls her towards writing political propaganda plays and the inherent tension she feels about her role as a wife and mother." — Kirstin Birkhaug
• [00:15:15] "She wants to capture this memory of the American Revolution, the keen despair people felt at the loss of liberty, and the steam this movement picked up." — Kirstin Birkhaug
• [00:17:33] "Mercy Otis Warren hopes to reinvigorate the memory of the American Revolution and its principles, which she says are well encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence." — Kirstin Birkhaug
• [00:25:52] "Mercy Otis Warren thinks that the Constitution is a departure from the spirit of the Revolution, not a continuation of it." — Matthew Brogdon

Our Guest

Dr. Kirstin Birkhaug is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Hope College. She teaches a variety of political science courses, including Introduction to American Politics and upper-level political theory. Her research focuses on early A

What does the "pursuit of happiness" really mean? It’s a question we often skim over, but the Founding Fathers had a very specific idea in mind—one deeply rooted in classical virtue and self-mastery. In this episode, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Jeff Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to unpack this phrase from the Declaration of Independence and its implications for personal and political life.

Rosen shares insights from his latest book, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America, exploring how figures like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams connected happiness with moral improvement and self-discipline. From Aristotle to Cicero and beyond, we discuss how ancient philosophy shaped the Founders' vision of a flourishing life and a well-ordered republic.

What lessons can we learn from the Founders’ emphasis on virtue? And how do we reconcile their moral aspirations with their glaring contradictions, such as the perpetuation of slavery? Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on how the pursuit of virtue can inform our understanding of happiness, freedom, and modern democracy.

In This Episode:

• (00:03) Introduction to the podcast
• (00:15) Purpose of the episode
• (00:43) Overview of Jeff Rosen’s book, The Pursuit of Happiness
• (01:02) How the Founders viewed happiness and virtue
• (02:25) Key classical virtues: temperance, prudence, courage, and justice
• (03:45) The role of self-mastery in personal and political governance
• (05:20) Jeff Rosen’s COVID-era experiment: Reading Jefferson’s inspirations
• (08:10) The habits of lifelong learning and deep reading
• (10:35) Virtue is both a personal and civic duty
• (12:00) Examples of virtue and hypocrisy among the Founders
• (15:40) The moral contradictions of Jefferson and other Virginian enslavers
• (18:30) How figures like Frederick Douglass embodied virtuous self-improvement
• (20:25) Reconciling freedom and virtue in a democratic society
• (22:15) Jefferson, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience
• (24:50) Lessons from ancient Stoic philosophy for modern life
• (27:05) Virtue as an answer to modern political challenges

Notable Quotes

• [00:01:02] "For the Founders, the pursuit of happiness meant not feeling good, but being good." — Jeff Rosen

• [00:05:20] "I spent a year reading Jefferson’s favorite books. It changed my life by making me a deeper thinker and better citizen." — Jeff Rosen

• [00:15:40] "Jefferson recognized the evil of slavery but lived like a Caligulan emperor, surrounded by enslaved labor." — Matthew Brogdon

• [00:27:05] "The Founders believed personal self-government was essential to political self-government." — Jeff Rosen

Resources and Links

Matthew Brogdon

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

   Jeff Rosen

• Keynote address at UVU CCS Fall Conference: https://bit.ly/3ARulwg
• https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosen
• https://x.com/rosenjeffrey?lang=en
• https://www.law.gwu.edu/jeffrey-rosen