The 1st Amendment recognizes our God-given right to free speech without government restriction.  But what is a college student to do when it’s their own college suppressing their free speech?  What is that student to do when that suppression directly leads to hate speech and violent threats from their fellow students simply for having a differing opinion?  Our guest was such a student.  We are delighted to welcome back to Constituting American Evita Duffy.  Evita won our “We the Future” contest back in 2010.  Since that time, she attended the University of Chicago and is now a journalist.  We are happy to have one of our earliest contest winners and member of the Constituting America family back to share her experience regarding free speech on college campuses and her hopes for a renewed culture of free speech.

Picture this:  You are a young child growing up in a suburb of Boston.  You happen to a big fan of the musical “Hamilton” and through an educational TV show, you learn that the park where you regularly ride your bike and your neighborhood is portrayed in the musical you love!  This is exactly what happened with this week’s special guest, Sabrina Bhattacharjya.  Now a 14-year old historian, Sabrina has dived deep into the history of her town, Lexington, Massachusetts.  This is where the infamous “shot heard ‘round the world” took place that started the American Revolution.  Sabrina has since started Lexington 250 to help celebrate in April 2025 the 250th anniversary of that famous day.  Join our student panel as we learn more of the interesting facts and historical significance of what happened that day from this fabulous historian.

The electoral college is one of the most important characteristics of our republic, but it is also perhaps the most misunderstood.  Every time we vote for President the merit of the electoral college is debated. But what is it? Why was it created?  How does it protect small states, and preserve state identity?  Should we view it as a problem itself or an effective solution to a problem? To address all of these questions and so much more, we are delighted to have Michael Maibach, electoral college expert and Distinguished Fellow for Save Our States, as our special guest this week.

It’s 1787 and you are a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.  You represent a midsize state and arriving 3 days late, you encounter James Madison’s Virginia Plan to allocate representation among the states proportionally.  You realize how this would be a detriment to smaller states who are needed to ratify the Constitution.  What do you do?  You are Roger Sherman from Connecticut and you draft the Connecticut Compromise which allocates representation in the lower chamber based on population but guarantees equal state representation in the upper chamber.  Why was this necessary and what other provisions did it entail?  To answer these questions, we are pleased welcome Mark David Hall, Professor in the Robertson School of Government at Regent University and scholar on early America.

He was an actor, governor and our 40th president.  Today, we are discussing the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Though now a modern icon of conservatives, Reagan’s political leanings were originally democrat as a supporter of FDR and Truman.  During his presidential term, through what lens did Reagan approach the limitations placed on government?  In what way was he a Constitutional originalist?  How did this belief factor into navigating a constitutional crisis like the Iran Contra Affair?  To guide us in this chat, we are pleased to welcome back an alumni of the Reagan White House and current Senior Fellow in the Center for American Prosperity at the America First Policy Institute., Jim Pinkerton, for our weekly constitutional chat.

Today, we are discussing our country’s 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower.  A Texan by birth but raised in Kansas, Eisenhower graduated from West Point and during World War II served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe and was promoted to 5-star General of the US Army. Twice elected President, Eisenhower notably led our country as we entered the Cold War. In what ways did Eisenhower’s military experience shape his views on domestic and foreign policy?  What civil rights advancements were made during his tenure?  What was his overall sense of duty?  To help us in this discussion, we are pleased to welcome Dr. Elizabeth Spalding, Chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for this informative chat.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt served as the 32nd US President and was our longest serving president, having run for and won four elections to the presidency.  FDR was President during two tumultuous events in US history, the Great Depression and the outbreak of World War II.  Pulling a page from the Woodrow Wilson playbook, FDR expanded the administrative state even further.  In what ways did FDR expand the scope and size of the federal government?  Why did the American people elect him four times to the office of the presidency? What did he mean when he spoke of “bold, persistent experimentation?”  To chat with our student panel on FDR, we are delighted to welcome Jim Pinkerton this week.  Jim is an alumni of the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and is currently a Senior Fellow in the Center for American Prosperity at the American First Policy Institute.

In our chat today, we are focusing on our 31st President, Herbert Hoover.  Born poor to a Quaker family in Iowa in 1874, Hoover was one of the first graduates of Stanford University in 1895.  He earned a fortune as a mining engineer and had business interests on 6 of 7 continents.  He rose to public prominence during World War I and joined the Woodrow Wilson administration as the leader of the Food Administration.  He successfully ran for President in 1928 but his administration was quickly stained by Prohibition (which he inherited from the previous administration) and the stock market crash and Great Depression.  He was soundly defeated in 1932.  To help our student panel grasp the policies and worldview that shaped President Hoover, we are happy to welcome Stephen Tootle, Professor of History at the College of the Sequoias, for this informative discussion.

The administrative state, the professional bureaucracy in our federal government, has not always been such a feature in how government functions.  Did you know President Woodrow Wilson helped  precipitate the rapid rise in that bureaucracy? How did this happen and why? What did Wilson mean when he spoke of an elastic constitution, and how does it threaten our freedom? To walk our student panel  through this topic, we are delighted to have William Morrissey, Professor Emeritus at Hillsdale College, as our special guest constitutional expert.

In 1831, a 26 year-old French member of the aristocracy arrived in New York City to examine our prison system.  Alexis de Tocqueville would do that and so much more.  Over 9 months, he and his travel companion, Gustave de Beaumont, traveled extensively and in 1835, he published “Democracy in America.”  De Tocqueville studied and answered what it took to perpetuate our political institutions, what the “habits of the American heart” are and what it means to be an American.  In fact, it was De Tocqueville who coined the term American Exceptionalism.  To guide our student panel as we discuss this seminal work, we are pleased to welcome Dr. Dorothea Wolfson, program director and senior lecturer in the MA in Government Program at Johns Hopkins University.   

Perhaps no Founding Father exemplifies the ideal of a citizen-legislator quite like John Adams.  Never a wealthy man, Adams dedicated his life and contributed greatly to our country in its infancy: as a lawyer, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, as our first Vice President and as our second President.  What was the basis for Adam’s beliefs in how our country should be structured and why does our guest today argue John Adams was the greatest of our Founding Fathers?  Join our student panel as we welcome C. Bradley Thompson, Professor of Political Science at Clemson University, for this informative discussion.

He was a city mayor, state representative and state senator.  He was a lieutenant governor and governor.  And he was a vice president and president.  Today, we are discussing the accomplishments of Calvin Coolidge.  He was an ardent defender of the US Constitution and fought the trend to alter and reinterpret the provisions in the Constitution.  He was also a dedicated “Toquevillian.” To guide our student panel in this discussion, we are thrilled to welcome Amity Shlaes as a guest.  She is the author of “Coolidge” (2013) and is the chair board of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation.

He was a solider, general, President and statesman.  George Washington is one of those few historical figures whose real-life accomplishments live up to the legend of the man. But what was Washington’s role in crafting the document that ultimately made him President?  What were his thoughts on the role of a federal government in our new country?  To help us understand Washington’s mindset during this pivotal era, we are delighted to welcome Stewart McLaurin, president of the White House Historical Association for this informative chat with our student panel.

During the summer before every presidential election, both major political parties host their conventions.  Part of their function is to formally nominate their candidate for President.  Just who are the thousands of delegates who attend? What are their duties?  How are they chosen?  To help us understand everything related to these conventions and delegates, we are excited to welcome back election law expert Mark Braden and our student panel for this discussion.

Back in April, we discussed the Chevron Doctrine and the power it gave to unelected officials in various agencies.  This doctrine allowed agencies to rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous law.  In the recent Loper Bright decision, the Supreme Court struck down this doctrine.  To help our student panel understand the long term ramifications of this decision, we are delighted to welcome back Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for this timely discussion.

Back in May, we discussed a Supreme Court case that was about to be decided regarding actions local governments had taken regarding homelessness encampments in public spaces, in their cities.  Late last month, the Supreme Court sided 6-3 with the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, ruling their laws did not violate the 8th amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.  Returning from that previous show, we are thrilled to welcome back Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, as he discusses the ramifications of this U.S. Supreme Court decision with our student panel.

As with most Supreme Court decisions, the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity is both complex and misunderstood. The Court had to rule on what level of immunity the President has in regard to his official duties as President. This case involves a complex series of rulings from various courts but we are thankful to have returning as our guest, former US Attorney and retired Navy JAG officer Charles “Cully” Stimson. Cully will help our all-star student panel unravel the complexities of this landmark Supreme Court case.

This week we celebrate the spirit of the American people! A country’s identity is directly tied to its people.  A good way to gauge the characteristics and spirit of a country’s people is to look at the country from an outsider’s perspective.  That’s exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville did when he came to America in 1831.  The French-born aristocrat traveled extensively around our country and in 1835 wrote of his observations and experiences in “Democracy in America.” What can we learn from his observations?  Are his observations still relevant nearly 200 years later?  To help us further understand the importance and relevance of de Tocqueville’s writings, we are pleased to welcome Dr. Pete Peterson, Dean of Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, to the chat today.

When you hear the term “the American Dream” what do you think of first?  Homeownership?  Going to college?  Having a great job?  Safe communities?  All are correct answers.  What is amazing about that dream is that it can be unique to each of us, yet is something we all collectively enjoy in this country. Think about this.  Our Constitution does not specifically mention the American Dream, but it protects the freedoms to pursue it. The American Dream did not happen by accident and our guest argues it’s largely driven by economic liberty.  To find out why, join our student panel and our special guest, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel, for this fascinating discussion!

Our country is one of unimaginable beauty.  From snow-capped mountain peaks to arid deserts to peaceful beaches, our varied landscapes have spoken to our soul as a nation for generations.  Our country currently preserves 63 sites with the “national park” designation, with a total of 429 sites in the system.  To help us better understand the history and significance of these locales, we are delighted to welcome two guests to our chat this week.  Linda Harvey is a former Deputy Director of the National Park Service.  Karla Morton is the 2010 Texas Poet Laureate and has written extensive poetry about our national parks in her book, “National Parks: A Century of Grace.”

We admit it.  We are big fans of federalism.  Regular listeners will understand that Constitution grants certain rights to the federal government and courtesy of the 10th amendment, remaining powers are reserved for the states.  Does this mean federalism is a function of recognition of states’ rights?  Our special guest argues this characterization is better suited if we view federalism as a function of decentralized and self-government as it relies on local authority.  Join our guest, Dr. William B. Allen, Emeritus Professor of Political Philosophy and Dean of James Madison College at Michigan State University, and our student panel for this enlightening conversation on federalism.

As Americans, do we sometimes have a tendency to take freedom for granted?  When it’s something most of us have lived with our entire lives, the answer is assuredly yes.  That’s to be expected as we can’t fully comprehend what it is to live without. But ask anyone born under a dictator or totalitarian regime and they quickly remind of us of the blessings of liberty, since they once lived without it.  To help remind us of this blessing of freedom, we are honored to have Ambassador Aldona Woś.  Polish born, Ambassador Woś served as the US Ambassador to Estonia during the George W. Bush Administration and is currently the President of the Institute for World Politics. Her personal story is a compelling reminder that freedom is not free, nor is it permanent. 

The 16th Amendment gives power to congress to “lay and collect taxes.”  After all, a country has to have an ability to raise revenue. When it comes to that revenue, we have had a tradition of paying taxes on income, not the value of an investment, like paying taxes when we sell a few shares of stock in a company and not on the growth of that stock every year we own it.  Those are called realized gains.  There is discussion in the federal government to change that and tax unrealized gains meaning we would have to pay taxes on the increase in value in our homes or investments even before we sell that possession.  The genesis of this Supreme Court case was a provision in the tax cuts package passed and signed into law in 2017 to help pay for those cuts.  We know, tax code and tax law are confusing.  Fortunately, to help us navigate this confusing topic, we have a very special guest with an impressive legal career.  Paul Clement is the country’s former Solicitor General (the Department of Justice’s chief lawyer in front of the Supreme Court), now in private practice.  He has argued more than 100 cases in front of the Supreme Court, more than any other lawyer since 2000, in or out of government.

The Constitution dictates every 10 years we undergo a Census to count how many people live in each state.  Based off these population numbers, congressional seats are then apportioned.  States who lost population might lose a seat and states who grew may gain a seat or two since we can only have 435 total seats in the U.S. House.  This brings up an obvious question: who gets to redraw congressional districts after apportionment and can they redraw those districts for a political benefit?  This is where gerrymandering comes into play.  According to our guest expert, “gerrymandering” is drawing districts that are perceived to be unfair in their representation.  To further complicate the issue, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 placed restrictions on how these districts are redrawn and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have further altered this process.  The current Supreme Court case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has the potential to challenge again how districts are redrawn. It’s a complicated issue but we are grateful to have as our guest Mark Braden, an attorney with BakerHostetler who specializes in election law and voting issues to help us navigate this issue.

City Councils all across the country have been tackling an issue that has bipartisan concern: how to tackle homeless populations within their cities.  Grants Pass, OR., is one such city.  Grants Pass is in the middle of the Supreme Court case Johnson v. Grants Pass that is challenging that city’s ability to levy civil and criminal punishments to deter homeless encampments.  A Supreme Court decision is expected this summer.  To help our student panel understand the broad implications of this Supreme Court case and the “strait jacket” put on cities by lower courts to enforce their ordinances, we are delighted to welcome Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation for this timely chat.

Trial by jury and fair court proceedings bound by constitutional restraint are bedrock principles of our federal government.  Imagine being charged with a crime by a federal agency except the agency handles the entire court proceedings with a judge on its payroll.  The Securities and Exchange Commission was created by a 1934 act in response to the Great Depression and Stock Market Crash of 1929.  In 2008, in response to the financial crisis, its powers were significantly expanded through the Dodd Frank Act.  Under that legislation, the SEC was allowed to have in-house court proceedings with administrative law judges it hires.  As such, prosecutorial, judicial, enforcement and punishment power is all held within a singular agency.  A current Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, is challenging that power.  Join our all-star student panel and our special guest, Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we discuss this case, its ramifications and the caution George Washington gave us when he spoke against unfair quasi-courts.

In February of this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Ohio v. EPA.  This case challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Good Neighbor Plan which aims to curb pollution carried by the wind into neighboring states. As usual, legal proceedings can easily become confusing as a lawsuit makes its way to the Supreme Court.  Fortunately, we are welcoming back Steve Bradbury, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, to help us unravel this case as we discuss the background and ramifications of this lawsuit.

Federally, we have 536 elected positions between Congress and the President.  We then have 2.8 million federal employees.  How do we limit the power among the unelected officials we have in our federal government?  To tackle this very important question, the Supreme Court introduced the Chevron Doctrine (also called the Chevron Deference) as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.  To help us understand the complexities of the Chevron Doctrine, how the powers of unelected officials have grown over the years and how current cases before the Supreme Court may affect these powers, we are happy to welcome to our discussion Jack Fitzhenry, Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Presidential immunity is in the news a lot lately.  It derives from a notion that all three branches of government retain powers to execute their duties under the constitution.  But there is also a tradition in our country that no one is above the law.  In a nation that follows established law, not following those laws can lead to anarchy or distrust in the government.  We have a lot to unpack with this very timely and relevant topic. To help us do so alongside our student panel, we are delighted to welcome fan-favorite guest Adam Carrington, associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

Did you know the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear four cases pertaining to social media this term?  One of the major issues is whether or not an elected official has the authority to limit speech on social media accounts by blocking critical comments pertaining to their work in office.  We know government cannot prohibit your speech, but are elected officials required to permit all comments on their official pages, or can they censor them? What about their personal pages?  Can the government pressure social media companies to take down posts the government seems “misinformation”? There’s a lot to unpack with these various cases so we are delighted to welcome Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University’s Commonwealth Law School for this very timely discussion.

Who is the Speaker of the House and what are his duties?  How does a bill become law?  What are the three branches of government.  Let’s be honest, so many in our country are not fully educated on civics.    If we don’t understand how Congress works, we get frustrated with the whole process.  This leads to an overall sentiment that Congress is broken.  Our guest today likes to say “without public trust, you cannot govern.  Without governing, people get angry and hostile and walk away from the system.” Today, joining our student panel to discuss how we can begin to fix this, is our special guest Michael S. Johnson, author of “Fixing Congress: Restoring Power to the People.”

Winning a war was just the beginning for George Washington’s service to our new country.  After retiring to Mount Vernon post-war, Washington saw a weakness in our country under the Articles of Confederation.  He felt the future of republican democratic self-government globally was dependent on the American experiment.  If it were to fail in that perfect post-war moment, man was probably not destined to govern himself. Washington’s views on what the government should look like can seem to be contradictory in that he wanted a strong central government, as opposed to what the country had under the Articles of Confederation, but he also wanted the National government to be limited.  Rather than contradictory, this reveals a principled man.  To discuss Washington’s vision for the country with our student panel, we are delighted to welcome back Tony Williams, Senior Teaching Fellow with the Bill of Rights Institute for this historical conversation.

The relationship between the federal and state governments is not always clear.  These two governments exist simultaneously but at times have different goals and objectives.  The federal government can use its purse strings to coerce a state government to take an action and that state can simply refuse.  The Founders wanted states to solve major issues that were not under the federal purview to establish “laboratories of democracy.”  Joining our all-star student panel, we are happy to welcome Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia state senator,  Virginia attorney general and Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, as we discuss this unique relationship.

Can you name the President?  We hope yes!  Can you name your state’s governor?  More than likely yes.  But can you name your mayor and city council members?  While the issues nationally get the most attention, your local government’s actions impact your day-to-day life more.  Issues like your water supply, trash pickup, sewage, and police and fire departments are all controlled by local entities.  Some mayors aren’t paid a salary at all but one defining feature of mayors is they come directly out of the community in which they are serving.  They are your friend and neighbor.  To help us better grasp the importance of local officials, we are delighted to welcome Andrew Wambsganss, former mayor of Southlake, TX., to our podcast as we discuss the duties and responsibilities of local government officials, and why he says you can have the most impact by local government participation. 

Regular listeners will certainly recognize this famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  As the governed who give consent to the government, we have several mechanisms through which we can give that consent and voice approval or disapproval with an elected official.  Perhaps the most direct mechanism is through a town hall discussion.  A town hall is simply a public meeting between an elected official and their constituents where a number of topics pertaining to upcoming or past legislation can be discussed.  To help us better understand all things related to a town hall, we are delighted to have two guests joining our student panel.  Rochelle Porto is a longtime Pennsylvania activist who regularly participates in town halls in her state and Rep. Lynn Stucky has represented parts of North Texas in the Texas Legislature since 2017.

At Constituting America, we love to talk about federalism.  Federalism is a founding principle that government authority is best when one central government does not have all authority, but it is divvied up between local, state and national government.  Have you ever thought about why we have this system and what its virtues are?  In a large country with varied geographical interests, why does this system work?  Should those closest to a problem be the ones to solve that problem, and what are the benefits of this principle of subsidiarity? To help us further grasp the virtues of federalism, we are delighted to welcome Brenda Hafera, Assistant Director and Senior Policy Analyst for the Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, for this engaging discussion.

We have a military.  We have a militia.  When it comes to protecting our citizens, both play a role.  The same militia mentioned in the second amendment is actually defined in 10 U.S. Code § 246 as able-bodied men over 17 and under 45 years old, who are or intend to become US citizens and female citizens who are members of the National Guard.  What precisely are the differences in roles of the organized and unorganized militia compared to the military?  Under what circumstances is a militia’s Commander in Chief the President or a state’s governor?  When can the military and militia be deployed and what are the limits placed on them such as “posse comitatus?”  To help our student panel answer these questions, we are delighted to welcome back longtime friend of Constituting America, Andrew Langer.  Andrew is an author, speaker, writer, frequent guest on both radio and TV programs and the President of the Institute for Liberty.

One of the biggest events in the news lately has been the situation at our southern border and illegal immigration.  Texas, due to its lengthy border with Mexico, is front and center in this discussion that involves the role both state and federal governments play in immigration.  While the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the authority to write immigration-related laws and the executive branch has the authority to implement these laws, what can a state do if the laws are not carried out?  Joining our all-star student panel to answer this, we are pleased to welcome Lora Ries, Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Since World War II, the United States, as the world’s lone superpower, has promoted democracy around the world with a focus on the longevity of the nation-state.  After all, a nation-state that is whole and free, holds free and frequent elections and is representative of its people will tend to have greater stability, less war, more prosperity and greater trade opportunities.  But as our guest discusses, lately we are seeing a greater build-up of multi-lateral and regional organizations to replace the nation-state. How can the US foster a greater reliance on the nation-state as the core unit of analysis? How can we promote relationships between nation-states, instead of regional bureaucracies, for more prosperity? Joining our student panel, we are thrilled to welcome Dr. Kiron Skinner, Taube Professor of International Relations and Politics at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy.

Think about the environment under which our Constitution was drafted.  Our new nation had just waged and won a war for independence and was surrounded on all sides with hostility: the British in the north and their navy out to sea, the Spanish empire to the south, British and French ships patrolling the Caribbean and sometimes hostile Native American tribes to the west.  Our Founders knew war was necessary but also had a healthy wariness about where the power to wage it should reside.  The Founders questioned if war powers could lead to tyranny and questioned the effect of standing armies. Thus, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives this power to Congress and not the President.  Joining our student panel to help us further understand why, we are pleased to welcome Reid Smith, vice president of foreign policy at Stand Together where he serves as an expert of constitutional war powers and foreign policy.

In 1948, the United States under President Truman became the first country to recognize the existence of Israel.  Since then, the two nations have been staunch allies.  This alliance is certainly being put to the test with the latest round of fighting between the state of Israel and Hamas, the Islamic group which controls Gaza. What is the legal process for the US to provide aid to Israel?  What is the dual role Congress and the President play in helping our ally?  To help us answer these questions and more, we are delighted to welcome Lt. General (Ret.) Keith Kellogg.  General Kellogg is a retired three-star Army General and was a national security advisor to the Vice President. We are grateful he is sharing his unique expertise with our student panel.

Seemingly, the United States has been engaged in some armed conflict somewhere in the world for most of our lives.  However, the United States has not had a formal declaration of war since World War II.  How exactly does that happen?  From what authority does the Congress and President engage in war or armed conflict?  What is a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force and what are its limitations?  How does all of this relate to the almost 2 year long conflict in Ukraine today?  To help us answer all of these worthwhile questions with our all-star student panel, we are delighted to welcome Jamil Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, for this discussion on war powers.

We are wrapping up our series on the Bill of Rights with this special episode on the 10th Amendment.  In just 28 words, it grants tremendous powers not to the federal government but to the states.  How so?  Regular viewers of our chats know Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants 17 specific powers to Congress.  That’s it.  The 10th Amendment says any powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government are under the purview of the states or the people.  The Founders did this because they were wary of a strong central government, having just fought a war against a strong central government in King George III.  To help us unpack the ramifications and importance of the 10th Amendment, along with our all-star student panel we are delighted to welcome the 71st Governor of Virginia, The Honorable Robert F. “Bob” McDonnell as our special guest to discuss this special amendment.

The Ninth Amendment might seem a bit confusing at first glance.  To understand its massive significance requires some insight into what the Founders were thinking.  Think of the Bill of Rights not as granting rights to the people but rather restricting what the government can and cant do in the lives of its citizens.  To wit, it would be impractical to list every right a citizen has and as such the rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights should not be viewed as a limit to those rights.  Helping us and our all-star student panel grasp the importance of this amendment, we are delighted to welcome Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, as a guest on this week’s show.

Once again, the Founders showed their preference for brevity with the 8th Amendment.  It is actually the shortest of all the amendments but packs a wallop in just 16 words!  In this week’s chat, we are discussing the elements of the 8th Amendment: protections against excessive bails and fines and protections against cruel and unusual punishments.  We answer what is a cruel and unusual punishment, who decides the standard by which punishment is deemed legal or illegal, how does this relate to “death-eligible” crimes in the application of the death penalty and what is the evolving standard of decency that’s used as litmus test?  For this insightful conversation, we are pleased to welcome Paul McNulty, former US Attorney, Former Deputy US Attorney General and current president of Grove City College to share his knowledge and insight with our all-star student panel.

As we discussed last week, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial by jury in a criminal trial, among other guarantees.  The Seventh Amendment guarantees a trial by jury in federal civil cases for disputes over $20. Why were the Founders so adamant about jury trials as opposed to a single judge?  What is the difference between a civil or common law trial and a criminal trial?  What are the exceptions to a trial by jury?  And how does this apply and function in conjunction with state law? Alongside our student panel, we are delighted to welcome Eric J. Wise, partner at Alston & Bird, to help us understand the historical context, need and purpose of the Seventh Amendment.

A criminal trial has the potential to permanently alter the rest of one’s life.  Punishments can range from fines to imprisonment to execution.  This gives the government tremendous ability to impose penalties on its citizens.  The Founders understood this and laid out criteria under which criminal trials would proceed.  Under the Sixth Amendment, trials are speedy and fair, juries are impartial and Congress cannot take any of these rights away from the accused.  We are delighted to have joining our all-star student panel Paul J. Larkin, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation as he helps us understand the focus, meaning and purpose of the Sixth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment really packs a punch. Think about the Constitution like this: the body of the Constitution created the new government and the Bill of Rights immediately put constraints on that government’s power. The Founders had a natural skepticism and nervousness about governmental power especially when it comes to the prosecuting of criminal activity.  The Fifth Amendment lists 5 significant restraints on government: indictments by a grand jury, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, guarantees of due process and protects private property through the Takings Clause.  Joining our all-star student panel, we are delighted to have returning fan-favorite guest Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty, to help us unpack this crucial amendment.

The Fourth Amendment provides two specific protections: protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and requirements for when a warrant can be issued.  At only 54 words, the amendment continues the Founders’ penchant for brevity and leaves room for interpretation through the courts. How do we define what is unreasonable and probable and how has this standard changed over time?  At one point the United States Supreme Court said a search had to involve a physical trespass onto your property.  Obviously that standard has changed due to wiretaps and electronic communication.  To help us unpack the ever-changing circumstances around how we define searches, seizures and warrants, we are pleased to have Steven G. Bradbury joining our student panel.  Mr Bradbury is a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and has served in multiple Presidential administrations in various legal roles and will provide us with a keen insight into the Fourth Amendment.