What happens when nine unelected judges have the final say on the most divisive questions in American life? In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon break down the Supreme Court’s most consequential and contentious tool: judicial review.

They explore how this authority allows nine unelected justices to strike down laws, reshape policy, and act as a final check on Congress and the presidency. But where does this power actually come from? Is it rooted in the Constitution or in political tradition? And does it strengthen or weaken democracy?

Savannah and Matthew examine the origins of judicial review, from the Supremacy Clause to Marbury v. Madison, and how the courts have used this power to decide the nation’s most polarizing issues—from marriage equality to abortion rights. They also unpack the tension between constitutional stability and democratic self-rule, and why judicial review has become both a cornerstone of American government and a lightning rod for controversy.

In This Episode

• (00:00:15) Judicial Review: Introduction and definition
• (00:01:26) Scope and constitutional basis
• (00:03:13) Judicial review in Article III and historical assumptions
• (00:04:01) Marbury v. Madison and early judicial review
• (00:05:25) Hamilton, Federalist 78, and popular sovereignty
• (00:07:05) Jefferson vs. Hamilton: The dead hand of the past
• (00:08:31) Jefferson’s revolutionary perspective
• (00:12:06) Judicial review as upholding the original bargain
• (00:12:47) Amendments and overturning Supreme Court decisions
• (00:15:09) Marbury v. Madison and precedents
• (00:19:01) Frequency and notification of judicial review
• (00:20:22) Political impact of Marbury v. Madison
• (00:23:01) Judicial review and modern controversies
• (00:25:33) Congressional response to Supreme Court decisions
• (00:28:28) The Supreme Court’s aristocratic nature and democratic tension
• (00:29:32) Judicial review as a tool of national majorities
• (00:31:36) Deliberation and the Court’s effect on democracy
• (00:34:20) When should the Court intervene?
• (00:35:31) Origins and alternatives to judicial review
• (00:39:09) Judicial review: Supreme but not final

Notable Quotes

• (00:51) “When judges declare a law unconstitutional, they're saying that the law is in effect, unenforceable.”— Matthew Brogdon
• (01:53) “There's one provision in article six and what's called the Supremacy Clause that tells state judges they're supposed to declare state laws and constitutional provisions unconstitutional, or declare them void if they conflict with a federal law or the federal constitution.”— Matthew Brogdon
• (05:25) “This is something Alexander Hamilton will talk about in Federalist 78, where he will defend judicial review as a necessary check on legislative power, basically, legislative overreach, violation of rights. And this is very interesting.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (00:09:06) “The hardest thing about revolution is ending it.It's creating a stable government. And the way you do that is stability and veneration in the laws” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (15:58) “Marbury is the first time the Supreme Court openly exercises the power of judicial review and declares a federal law unconstitutional.”— Matthew Brogdon
• (00:23:10) “Judicial review is the basis for the court being a co-equal branch of government. It’s what makes them powerful—and potentially problematic in a democratic system.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (00:30:06) “Judicial review is a kind of tool of national majorities to discipline states that want to stay out of the prevailing direction in the country.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (00:39:09) “Judicial review is a supreme power—but not a final power.” — Mat

Abraham Lincoln claimed he only wanted to save the Union. So how did he end up freeing millions of enslaved Americans?

In this special Juneteenth episode, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Diana Schaub, professor emerita of political science at Loyola University Maryland and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. A leading Lincoln scholar, Schaub brings deep insight into the political, legal, and moral complexity of emancipation.

Together, they explore how Lincoln’s views on slavery evolved, how he balanced his constitutional oath with his personal convictions, and why his famous executive order—though limited in scope—became the most consequential in American history. The episode also traces the military strategy, legal ambiguities, and political finesse that led to the 13th Amendment and the legacy of Juneteenth.

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Opening and introduction
• (00:01:16) Lincoln’s stance on slavery and the Constitution
• (00:01:44) Slavery as a state vs. federal issue
• (00:02:18) The battle over territories and the spread of slavery
• (00:03:28) Lincoln’s strategy: Quarantine and gradual extinction
• (00:05:44) Changing Southern attitudes: Slavery as a positive good
• (00:07:14) Lincoln’s efforts with border states and gradual emancipation
• (00:08:41) Decision for executive action: Emancipation Proclamation
• (00:10:51) Scope and strategy of the Emancipation Proclamation
• (00:11:46) Reassuring border states and shaping public opinion
• (00:13:55) Effectiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation
• (00:15:26) African American troops and military impact
• (00:17:19) Legal status of the Emancipation Proclamation post-war
• (00:18:32) The need for the 13th Amendment
• (00:20:16) Lincoln’s political strategy for the 13th Amendment
• (00:22:29) Lincoln’s signature and ratification process
• (00:23:05) Failure of the first House vote
• (00:24:17) Lincoln’s sense of timing and political skill
• (00:25:28) Black troops and the right to vote
• (00:26:31) Civil War: Union vs. abolition motives
• (00:27:32) Gettysburg Address and the moral meaning of the Union
• (00:29:06) Gettysburg Address vs. Second Inaugural Address
• (00:30:31) National responsibility and postwar reconciliation
• (00:33:22) Final reflections and closing

Notable Quotes

• [00:01:45] “Slavery was regarded as a domestic institution... governed at the state level, it was considered a state matter.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:04:36] “Lincoln thought that the Founders put slavery in a position of moral and physical quarantine.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:05:07] “The Southerners took that as the death knell of slavery and were prepared to secede over it.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:14:11] “The Emancipation Proclamation assumes that slaves will take action on their own. It in fact invites them to take action on their own.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:15:45] “By the end of the Civil War, one-fifth of the Union troops were African American.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:26:46] “The Union is everything because the Union has moral worth. It has moral content.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:27:16] “Lincoln believed that if slavery were to have spread into the territories, then it would actually become perpetual.” — Diana Schaub
• [00:32:49] “The point of the theological interpretation is to try to get Americans to transcend those bad passions and move in the direction of charity.” — Diana Schaub

Can Congress say no after it already said yes? For more than 50 years, the legislative veto let Congress give power to the president, then yank it back when it didn’t like the results. It was a political safety net, a constitutional gray area, and a ticking time bomb.

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack how this backdoor power worked, why it exploded in the landmark case INS v. Chadha, and what that means for modern government.

They trace its roots from tariff tweaks and emergency powers to immigration enforcement and massive presidential discretion. The Supreme Court said the legislative veto was unconstitutional. But here’s the twist: Congress’s sweeping delegations of power to the president stayed in place. So now we’re stuck with a powerful executive and no real legislative check.

In This Episode

• (00:00:02) Introduction and overview
• (00:00:16) Executive veto vs. legislative veto explained
• (00:02:25) Historical background of legislative veto
• (00:03:26) Types of legislative vetoes
• (00:04:24) INS v. Chadha case introduction
• (00:04:50) Details of the Chadha case
• (00:06:46) Judicial and due process concerns
• (00:09:09) Constitutional issues with legislative veto
• (00:11:36) Supreme Court ruling in INS v. Chadha
• (00:12:11) Impact on existing laws
• (00:13:52) Tariffs and legislative-veto example
• (00:15:01) Expansion of presidential power post-Chadha
• (00:17:04) Political and constitutional implications
• (00:19:20) Three options for addressing legislative veto
• (00:20:28) Supreme Court’s dilemma, possible solutions
• (00:27:18) Alternative legislative solutions

Notable Quotes

• [00:01:10] “Imagine Congress authorizes the President to tear down some of the hideous brutalist architecture in Washington, D.C., and put beautiful buildings, big, beautiful buildings in its place. Right. Which I'm in favor of.” — Matthew Brogdon

• [00:08:23] “If you had to pick any deliberative body to decide a question about your fate... no one would look at a congressional committee and go, that's the group I want deciding.” — Matthew Brogdon

• [00:12:38] "We live in a post-Chadha period now where presidents still have this delegated authority, but there is no congressional check."— "Savannah Eccles Johnston 

• [13:57] “So the Congress passed back in the early 1900s, something called the TWEA. And you know a good chunk about this. It's gives the President the capacity to have some discretion over certain tariffs and how Congress can respond to that then."— "Savannah Eccles Johnston 

• [00:17:38] “The legislative veto was actually a sort of incentive for Congress to delegate away absolutely way too much of its authority.” — Matthew Brogdon

• [00:19:25] “You can either say the legislative veto is necessary in modern government, we're going to overlook constitutional issues. Two, you can say the legislative veto is unconstitutional and deny it, but be okay with delegations of authority to the president continuing anyway."— Savannah Eccles Johnston 

• [00:16:37] "Did Congress intend to grant the President that level of unchecked tariff power where it's unquestionably a power of Congress to control tariffs in the Constitution? They've delegated some of this authority without the capacity to say, except we don't like it in this circumstance.— "Savannah Eccles Johnston 

• [00:21:03] “The legislative veto is pretty clearly unconstitutional. I mean, as a matter of constitutional structure, it's very hard to square it with Article 1, Section 7.” — Matthew Brogdon

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon examine the presidential veto — what it is, what it isn’t, and why it remains one of the most potent constitutional powers in modern governance.

They dissect the mechanics of Article I, Section 7, and explain the differences between the qualified veto (which Congress can override) and the pocket veto (which Congress cannot). Along the way, they revisit presidential losers like Andrew Johnson, discover why Reagan and Clinton both wanted a line-item veto and explore why even the threat of a veto is often more powerful than the veto itself.

Plus, a special focus on the institutional tug-of-war that defines the separation of powers and how the veto isn’t just a tool for lawmaking, but a key part of constitutional interpretation.

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Reading the Constitution’s veto clause
• (00:01:42) Why the word “veto” never appears in the Constitution
• (00:02:17) Qualified vs. absolute veto power
• (00:03:58) How pocket vetoes work and why they’re sneaky
• (00:04:56) Override math: why two-thirds matters
• (00:06:46) Less than 10 percent of vetoes are overridden
• (00:07:54) Veto failures: Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, George W. Bush
• (00:10:49) The veto as a political threat
• (00:13:00) Institutional vs. partisan power struggles
• (00:14:00) Madison's veto dreams and regrets
• (00:18:28) Reagan, Clinton, and the failed line-item veto
• (00:20:00) Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
• (00:24:23) Congress’s habit of abdication
• (00:25:26) Can the line-item veto return? Maybe.
• (00:26:00) Why do presidents explain their vetoes
• (00:28:00) Veto messages as constitutional arguments
• (00:29:14) Nixon’s War Powers Resolution veto lives on
• (00:30:00) Who interprets the Constitution? Everyone.
• (00:32:00) Checks, balances, and constitutional fights that matter

Notable Quotes

[00:02:06] “The president can veto a bill, subject to two-thirds override, but the word ‘veto’ doesn’t even appear in the Constitution.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:04:29] “The pocket veto isn’t in your face. It’s like, ‘Oops, I forgot to act and now all your legislative effort is dead.’” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:11:24] “This almost feels like an absolute veto because you could never muster the political will to override it.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:24:30] “Congress can’t get its house in order, so they ask the president to run it for them.” 

— Savannah Eccles Johnston

[00:29:14] “Sometimes a veto message gets overridden, but the constitutional argument inside it eventually wins.” — Matthew Brogdon

[00:31:00] “The constitutional system is structured so that each branch has to interpret the Constitution for itself.” — Matthew Brogdon

Resources and Links

This Constitution  

• Website

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

Checks, Balances, and Budget Showdowns

The President can’t spend a dime without Congress. But how often does Congress actually say no?

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon examine the constitutional power of the purse and how budget appropriations and oversight give Congress a critical check on the presidency. From historical roots in the British monarchy to today’s broken appropriations process, they unpack how Congress’s power to control money—and monitor how it’s spent—shapes our modern government.

They also explore the decline of meaningful oversight, the rise of political theater, and why the legislative branch struggles to rein in a powerful executive. From Defense Department spending to GAO reports no one reads, this episode dives into how Congress could reclaim its institutional strength… if it wanted to.

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Introduction to oversight and budgets
• (00:00:51) The power of the purse—Congress controls spending
• (00:02:12) Stopgaps, omnibus bills, and budget dysfunction
• (00:03:31) Tinkering with executive budget requests
• (00:04:25) FDR and the rise of presidential budgeting
• (00:06:17) Congressional restraint and presidential discretion
• (00:06:44) Why Congress won’t cut war spending
• (00:09:32) Standing armies and shifting public sentiment
• (00:11:05) Can presidents impound money Congress appropriates?
• (00:13:25) The Impoundment Control Act
• (00:14:42) Appropriations vs. expenditures—who writes the check?
• (00:18:03) How Congress uses budgets to shape foreign policy
• (00:20:34) Oversight as a check on executive agencies
• (00:22:32) The promise (and failure) of congressional oversight
• (00:24:28) Oversight vs. journalism—what’s Congress’s role?
• (00:26:42) Theater vs. actual oversight behind the scenes
• (00:28:56) Committees, staffing, and the hollowing of Congress
• (00:34:10) Losing institutional knowledge in public service
• (00:36:15) How to fix it—pay, staffing, and retention

Notable Quotes

• [00:04:25] “Without that constitutional requirement, you would see the complete collapse of the checks and balances system in favor of just presidential dictatorship.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:07:49] “You don’t want to be seen as the Congress who cuts the budget for the Defense Department.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:13:25] “The President doesn’t get that kind of discretion—though they’ve created a method by which he could if he needed to.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:20:34] “Not only does Congress fund agencies—they also get to ask: ‘Do you suck at your job?’” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:25:52] “Congress is trying to go viral on YouTube instead of doing oversight.” — Matthew Brogdon
• [00:33:32] “Budgets and oversight have been hollowed out. But if Congress reclaimed regular order and institutional thinking, it could pull power back from the presidency.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

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