We the People

As the House Judiciary Committee unveils articles of impeachment against President Trump, we’re sharing a fascinating two-part conversation on impeachment hosted here at the National Constitution Center on December 2nd. The first panel features leading constitutional scholars including NCC Scholar-in-Residence Professor Michael Gerhardt who testified as an impeachment expert before the House Judiciary Committee. The next panel (starting at 37 minutes) features current and former members of congress, including Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Representative Mary Gay Scanlon. They share their candid takes on the current impeachment inquiry, how it’s been handled, and what the Framers might think. This program was originally shared on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, in two parts. You can listen at these links: part one featuring the impeachment scholars and part two featuring the current and former members of Congress. Panel one features: Michael Gerhardt – National Constitution Center Scholar in Residence, CNN impeachment expert, and professor at UNC Law School Keith Whittington – professor of politics at Princeton University Kimberly Wehle – professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and CBS News legal analyst John Malcolm – Vice President of the Institution for Constitutional Government at Heritage  Moderator: Jeffrey Rosen – National Constitution Center President Panel two features: Rep. Dwight Evans (PA-03) Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05)  Fmr. Rep. Charles Dent (PA-15) Fmr. Rep. Ryan Costello (PA-06) Moderator: Jeffrey Rosen – National Constitution Center President Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard the case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York which centers around a New York City gun regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city. After New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, New York changed it – raising the question of whether this case is now “moot.” Explaining the “mootness” issue and diving into the legal and practical implications of the case – Second Amendment experts Darrell Miller of the Duke Center for Firearms Law and Clark Neily of Cato join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment, what the right to “bear arms” really means, and how the Court should decide its first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week:  Mootness: A case becomes moot if the controversy that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists.  Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law:  Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis: The most deferential kind of review. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Special thanks to the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The National Constitution Center’s initiative, ‘A Madisonian Constitution for All,’ is launching an essay series where leading scholars explore what James Madison, the “father of the Constitution”, might think about the presidency, Congress, courts, and the media today. This week, two of the authors celebrate the launch of the series by diving into all things presidential – how the office was conceived of at the Founding, evolved throughout history, was impacted by the rise of political parties and partisanship, and increasingly expanded its power. They also give their takes on the current impeachment investigation. Scholars Sai Prakash and Sean Wilentz, authors of the ‘Madisonian Constitution for All’ essays on the presidency, join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Twitter recently announced that it will stop paid political advertising, with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asserting that interest in political messaging should be earned, not bought. Meanwhile, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would not stop hosting political ads, saying that the platform should not be responsible for policing speech online. Will Twitter’s efforts to regulate political ads work? Might Facebook’s more “hands-off” approach lead to unintended consequences for our democracy? Which approach to regulating speech might foster free expression the most? And how do policies of private institutions shape our free speech landscape, given that the First Amendment doesn’t bind Twitter or Facebook? This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Abrams v. United States, so we also consider: Are the landmark First Amendment cases, many of which were decided decades before social media existed, still relevant in a world of ever-changing digital platforms, bots, and disinformation campaigns? Digital speech experts Ellen Goodman of Rutgers University Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. Some terms you should know for this week: Microtargetting: a marketing strategy that uses people’s data — about what they like, their demographics, and more — to segment them into small groups for content targeting on online platforms. Interoperability: the ability of computer systems or software to exchange and make use of information. In this context, that means that if platforms like Facebook were required to share data with other developers, those developers could create new platforms and there would be more competition in the market. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a policy enacted under President Obama that deferred the deportation of undocumented people brought to the United States as children. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard challenges to that decision and was faced with the questions: can the Court even review the decision to end DACA, since it was an action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, an executive branch agency? If it can, was the decision to rescind DACA legal? And is DACA itself legal and constitutional? Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston join host Jeffrey Rosen to dive into the questions. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.