It seems quaint to be talking about the constitution when we have a president who has declared himself a king, or dictator, enabled by a Supreme Court stacked with his political hacks. And how does Calabresi feel about how he and his pal Leonard Leo have so disgracefully undermined our democracy with their right wing federalist society judicial plants?But hey, it’s nice that you can be so civil and polite with each other while millions here and abroad suffer. You can pat yourselves on the back and smugly fiddle while Rome burns, partly because one of the founders of the destructive federalist society have brought us to this horrible place. Calabresi’s actions have had devastating consequences on the American people, and we have a dictator in large part because of his efforts.

Can Professor Amar read the Executive Orders please. Some of them are really about shredding the Constitution as has been practiced and interpreted by the Supreme Court. These folks are talking about ignoring the Judicial Branch.

Host1: We are 4 hours into the Trump administration, and we are still alive! Host2: Barely. Sooo cringe and whiny. Does anyone know of a podcast or show where hosts are not this leftist? It’s getting increasingly difficult to find shows where hosts give the facts and analysis, letting their political views aside. Especially when hosts come from the left, they tend to play victims. It’s getting annoying.

I am a huge supporter of Professor Amar’s work even though I disagree with some of the application of originalism in practice. I also do not agree with justifications of Justice Alito or Justice Thomas behaviour which is beyond the pale. But I have a deep respect for Professor Amar’s professionalism and ethics. The only recommendation I have is to start a YouTube channel as I would love to watch the podcasts on YouTube.

I’ve listened to this podcast for years - used to devour every word. But this past year their left wing extremism has boiled to the surface. Tired of the hatred. And apparently so is America, having turned the incumbent party out of the elected branches. Really too bad.

Professor Amar is very skilled in speaking about nuanced constitutional questions in clear and comprehensible language. And his knowledge of America’s legal history is astonishing. My one quibble is that he gets a little carried away with name-dropping and making sure we all know which of the luminaries cited on the show went to Yale. Sometimes, he lays out a person’s Ivy League credentials as (at least implicitly) a basis on which we should consider their views credible. It kind of rubs me the wrong way when he goes too far.

It seems like it has really gotten bogged down in politics lately. To be clear, I don't disagree with their politics but am just really tired of hearing how much they dislike Trump, RFK Jr., etc. (I don't like them either, but I'd subsribe to a politics pocast if that is what I wanted). Until recently I always made it to the end of the episode, but not recently. I'm not sure how much of it is Andy steering toward politics, but I'm hoping Akhill can move them on to other Constitutional topics.

This is truly an exceptional podcast, which brings together every week the encyclopedic knowledge and uniquely wonderful character of Akhil Amar and the charm and intellectual grace of Andy Lipka. They explore the current constitutional landscape and the fascinating history of our constitution and the country we have become.

It is obvious these fools have been infected with the satanic woke mind virus. They are very partial and bigoted, and push the satanic agenda that is destroying America.

I've been trying to subscribe on iTunes for weeks, each time I get an iTunes error message...

I have been listening to the Amarica’s Constitution podcast for a few years now. But I have to unfollow this podcast after the 2024 first court session. There are just too many instances that Professor Amar dresses his anti Trump viewpoints in legal opinions and constitutional interpretations. This is not legal scholarship but post-hoc advocacy. The idea that politically motivated legal prosecution and persecution of a president should be constitutionally sanctioned is absurd. I am convinced that the day that a former Democrat party President is legally pursued by a Republican administration is the day that Professor Amar will allow the Supreme Court to block that prosecution. The idea that the Bragg prosecution of Trump was a vindication of our legal system because a jury of 12 peers followed the corrupt instructions of the judge to convict is a tautology. In addition, Professor Amar’s tone is arrogant and dismissive of valid alternate viewpoints. It is unpleasant to listen to a scholar so impressed with himself that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is incompetent in interpreting the law.

Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka are the best always, particularly in this podcast “Disgrace.” I can’t express how wonderful it is to hear Akhil and Andy discuss the recent Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity. I’m no lawyer, but I know garbled bluster and fudge when I read it and that’s what Akhil and Andy make clear: John Robert’s opinion is a bunch of nonsense and bluster that makes no sense at all. I thank them for their candor, thank goodness for their candor, ooh how lost we would be without their candor!! Amarica’s Constitution helps to align my inner compass because I so often think the thoughts that Akhil and Andy express and find enormous validation knowing how very in synch we are.

After Alito and Thomas have been exposed as unethical political actors.. Amar goes on about how writing and getting paid for a book is about the same thing. GIVE ME BREAK. Not calling a duck a duck is disheartening.

This review is specifically related to the latest episode regarding Justice Alito and the upside down flag. It really really really was difficult to listen to! I don’t know how Andy could sit through that conversation and remain so calm and level. I hope Professor Amar goes back and listens to all of the philosophical and legal gymnastics, he hast to put himself through to justify his very very biased opinions on this matter. It sounds like he is a complete shill for a justice he does not want to get on the wrong side of. Please do better as you generally do!

If you want to understand our Constitution than this podcast is exactly what you should listen to. It’s not just for lawyers, but if you are a lawyer, you receive continuing education credits by listening.

It’s a good, substantive podcast but would be better if co-host (Lipka) were able to tone down or better dissimulate his case of “TDS.” Lipka never asks whether this or that prosecution is historically unprecedented in nature, politically motivated … just desperately wants to see Trump go to prison for life and even plays “you’re so vain” music whenever he mentions the former President.

Amar does not have Trump Derangement Syndrome. To the contrary, he sees Trump for the existential threat and vacuous blowhard that Trump is. If Amar has a fault (and don’t we all) it is that, at heart, he is insecure in his status as a preeminent scholar and authority - he is truly both, but terribly insecure; thus his incessant self-promotion. Andy Lipka is becoming a shining star of these podcasts as he gently and with good humor pulls Amar back on track. Lipka has many great observations; he adds much to the interest of these discussions. Lipka is surely Amar’s intellectual equal. And that’s what makes this podcast worth listening to despite Amar’s insecurity.

It’s with heaviest of heart I finally had to delete this podcast from my line-up. Trump just lives rent free in both these guy’s heads and it’s just not enjoyable. Amar has lost his way but I mainly blame his co-host for it. This guy is a liberal whack job to the extreme. When Amar first started his podcast, it was SO GOOD. It was like an extension of his books. Great legal history with the political scene as a backdrop to why the Constitution was what is became. Then solely, his co-host (who seriously suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome) pulled Amar from talking about what he knows best, to talking and talking and talking and talking about Trump. If/When Amar gets a new co-host, do I believe the podcast can return to normalcy. Amar needs to find someone who can keep him on track, to talk about what is original listeners came for: legal history, Original Constitutional interpretation, and allowing Amar to be Amar.

I’m not a lawyer or scholar. I listen because I care about this country and want to understand the issues SCOTUS is deciding. I appreciate the deep constitutional knowledge, the reasoned analysis and the civility these conversations offer. This podcast should be required in classes around the country - and at SCOTUS. Thank you for making them.

Ignore your disagreement with some of his opinions. What this podcast provides is nothing less than a peek inside the highest court of the land, from one of the nation's leading originalists. News coverage of SCOTUS almost always covers only politically controversial cases, and simply explains it with the judges' partisan affiliations, but Amar again pulls back the curtain, providing related cases, history, and a litany of relevant and intelligent experts, not all of whom he agrees with. As a young (and not rich) person, I deeply appreciate Andy's masterful skill in drawing analysis and legal themes out of Prof. Amar in a free educational resource such as this. I cannot reccomend it enough for people interested in law, the Supreme Court, or the role of legal arbitration in an increasingly divided society.

There is a reason he calls the show Amarica’s Constitution because it has little relation to America’s Constitution. He feels that it would be a better country if state officials could decide our presidential elections before we get to vote by picking who runs. He thinks it would be great if we were more like Iran where the elites decide the candidates and then allow the citizens to vote. It was great that not one Supreme Court Justice agreed with Amara’s lack of reasoning.

After listening to this podcast, I’m convinced listeners now know more about Section 3 of Article 14 of the Constitution than the Supreme Court. And that worries me. I’m glad I listened but my listening isn’t as important as theirs would be.

Stephen Toulmin called it the return to reason and in many ways this podcast attempts to make constitutional issues understandable and reasonable. I am a lay person- retired business professional and - many years ago - a college instructor in debate and forensics. This program is really helpful in making sense of SCOTUS and promoting civil discourse. And Ahkil and Andy have become- admittedly at a distance- friends of the family. Please keep up the effort.

When something makes sense, it just makes sense, and Andy and Professor Amar make sense. There is no pandering to one political perspective, there is simply the Constitution, the context and history, and the precedent. This podcast gives me hope that people in the constitutional law world are paying attention and influencing America’s course for the better. We’ve come a long way, let’s not give up now.

The disqualification of a president from future candidacy is provided under the Constitution under the impeachment rules: Congress shall decide ; first the Congress and then the Senate. Article XIV s 3, if applicable, again puts Congress in charge of any enforcement of s3. The President is governed by the Constiutional remedies: the Congress alone NOT any state or federal court shall be the sole judge.

Is Prof. Amar aware how often and how pervasively he promotes his own role in shaping SCOTUS opinions and other scholarship? You could play a drinking game by taking a shot every time he toots his horn, though beware: you’ll probably pass out before the episode ends. John Carlson Boulder CO

I’ve been looking for a podcast that goes deep into intellectual thought, discussion of the law & how a non-lawyer, law enthusiast can learn more & think deeper about the law. This podcast does it all!

I discovered Akhil Amar about a year ago (thank you Politicology for having him on as a guest), and he quickly rose to the top of my podcast list. i’ve been going back and listening to the episodes that I missed and just finished Voracious Horatius—a riveting look into the intrigue surrounding the election of 1800 and subsequent peaceful (barely) transfer of power. Akhil reads excerpts from his then just released book, The Words That Made Us, artfully weaving in and out of witty and playful banter with his host Andy Lipka. i’ve read this book, but listening to the author himself do the readings provided so much more insight into the story of these giants of the founding of America and their unique, often powerful personalities.

A professor, not a practicing lawyer, and it shows. Right result, wrong clause and a myopic view of the text that somehow only speaks to him. He’s got a novel approach and is for entertainment, not good legal theory. An Originalist shill at heart. Amar is a conservative apologist and, above all things, a ring kisser. He marches with the fascists but cries when they burn down the institutions.

Then I listened to the April 12 episode where Akile twisted himself around every hypothetical situation to defend his friend, Justice Thomas. It was nauseating. I’ve unsubscribed. In my mind there is a huge difference between the influence you claim to assert with the court as a legal scholar , and Justice Thomas and his wife being bought and sold. Oh, and then hiding it.

BRILLIANT analyses! Akhil Amar is able to masterfully unscramble so much of the static, so much of what is happening in our courts and in our democracy — what we should be caring about! I love how he exuberantly helps us better understand the US Constitution through current events. I bought his book “The Words That Made Us” and am making my way through all 90 episodes. And a huge thank you to Andy for your generous gift of learning from Akhil! You guys are such a lovely team. (I especially enjoyed hearing The Beatles “Two of Us” cranked up at the end of the show today.) Indeed!

Andy can cite Law & Order episodes chapter and verse (S5E10 House Counsel)! Also, both hosts are brilliant and insightful. They bring a refreshingly honest perspective to constitutional issues and acknowledge that principled constitutional analysis does not always yield the result one wants as a matter of policy.

I like the podcast and don’t want to give it a bad review, but professor Amar interrupts his co-host and the guests far too much! No one else can get a word in and are often interrupted mid word or mid sentence. Clearly he’s brilliant but it’s challenging to listen to someone interrupt others so much. We want to hear a discussion!

Do you honestly believe for a minute that Democrats respect Liz, Cheney, or that they were just happy to have a R-cudgel to club Trump with. Romney was a misogynist racist until he voted to impeach. Also, I do not want to hear anything about how Republicans “ought“ to evict Santos, when Bob Menendez is still a senator. All parties are garbage and you would do well to take the log out of your own eye.

The amount of joy that Andy, Akhil and their guests bring to these discussions is palpable and inspiring. Akhil is also just so intellectually honest and consistent, I think more people could take their cues from his style, even if they disagree (and he actually welcomes and encourages opposing viewpoints). Read his books, too!

Looking forward to being a permanent 1L. I think we can do without another visit from the intellectually uncurious Kate Shaw.

Thank you for having this discussion. Thank you Andy for the follow up discussion. It may seem hard to believe that progressive law students don’t want to debate the conservative side, but I’ve seen this in other areas as well. It does not strengthen progressive arguments by declining to debate. I hope this episode can help make a change in this area.

I am an avid podcast listener, consuming many hours every week of a handful of various topics. There are others with better sound and production- all of them require a paid subscription, mind you - but none of them offer the incredible, consistently high quality content, and enjoyable hosts. It is a joy to listen and learn from both Andy and Akhil. This is a national treasure.

A fresh look at our Constitution within the historical context that gave it birth. Professor Amar has the gift of teaching, I could listen to him all day (kudos to the podcast Advisory Opinions for introducing him to many of us). Especially enjoy the lively banter between he & co-host Andy.

Andy and Akhil are powerhouse intellectuals who bring refreshing insights into constitutional law, current events, and more with each episode. It is high level commentary yet still accessible for anyone interested in learning more about the Supreme Court, American History, and of course, the law. Thank you so much Andy and Akhil for making this show every week!

I look forward on Wednesday to get a balanced explanation of why the blending of constitutional law and history is so important to understand constitutional issues that seem to come at us daily. It can get overwhelming sorting out the facts and legal reasoning from partisan spin in a world of 24/7 news.

This conversational podcast guided by Andy Lipka and Yale Professor of Law Akhil Reed Amar delivers a first class (tuition free) education in US Constitutional interpretation! If you are serious about understanding the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, really learning what’s going on, Akhil delivers with his expertise in a unique originalism methodology, providing a more complete portrait if the topics than found elsewhere in the public arena. Not the only podcast on the subject that I listen to, but by far the one that I learn the most from. Thank you Andy and Akhil for bringing this education to the public.

Content is captivating. However, his voice is untenable for misophonia sufferers. Do not listen with headphones, it’s even worse. Perhaps he could back away from the mic.

The amount of thought and care put into this podcast makes many others just seem like jokes. This podcast *almost* makes me want to go to law school.

I also listened to the two Politocology podcasts and knew I needed more. I feel like I am getting a FREE Yale Law School education. Yes, I get lost sometimes but I find it all fascinating. Thank you for taking time to offer me this this FREE education that I otherwise would not get.

Professor Amar says laws passed before women had the right to vote ought to be struck down for that reason alone. Yet he defends the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified, checks notes, before women had the right to vote. What a deeply unserious thinker!

I appreciate the clear and understandable commentary on complicated topics from such an esteemed brilliant mind. Mr. Amar and his co-host do an amazing job of breaking down the issues, laws and constitution in explainable nuggets so that a person with little legal knowledge can garner valuable insights. He speaks from an unbiased POV, and while he makes his personal values known, he walks the steady line of what does the constitution say, why, and how it applies to the topic at hand - appealing to both conservatives and liberals. Thank you both for taking the time to create and offer this podcast.

Fair, balanced, astute, Amat guides listeners through the thorns and thickets of constitutional law and the Supreme Court. Well done.

I was so happy to find this podcast! Until I tried to make it all the way through 5 or 6 or so episodes…. I keep being disappointed and turned off at how Prof. Amar spends so much time name dropping, exploring decades-old personal connections, going on long tangents about articles he wrote decades ago, and hijacking the entire conversation to the point where his guest can barely get a word in edgewise! It’s clear that Prof. Amar is passionate and excited about the topics he discusses. But I always end up deleting the show halfway through because I just can’t bear hearing him anymore.

1. Doesn’t 14th Amendment say “make or enforce” simply because it contemplates prior existing law? 1b. Wouldn’t it never make sense for 1st Amendment to say “enforce” because it applies to Congress which is only legislative and has no Exectuive power, as opposed to “States” which have Exectuive, legislative and judicial powers? 2. Can you elaborate on your recent statements that YLS needs to have more intellectually diverse faculty? How could that happen? Is this limited to YLS or apply to legal academia more broadly?