The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks. In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar. We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media. When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three. Will the Court see it this way? Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
Sense and Nonsense on Immunity
Don't Touch but Do Convict
Crime Means Punishment
Immunity Therapy
No Standing Any Time
History Will Judge
Dissenting in Concurrence
What the Concurrences Should Have Said
Happy Anniversary Mr. Lincoln from the Court
Staking our Claim
What the Oral Argument Should Have Said - Part 2
What the Oral Argument Should Have Said
20 Questions on Section 3 and Insurrection #1 - Special Guest Ted Widmer
A Self-Educating Gaffe
Friends of the Court - The Brief
Section Three Goes to Washington
Section Three Punditry: The Good, The Bad, and The Silly
The World Turns to Section Three
Juries, Jarkesy, and a Joke
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free