App Store

Google Play

SE - Details page - Device banner - 894x1036

Kliv in i en oändlig värld av stories

Lyssna när som helst, var som helst

Roman Mars

Professor Elizabeth Joh teaches Intro to Constitutional Law and most of the time this is a pretty straight forward job. But when Trump came into office, everything changed. During the four years of the Trump presidency, Professor Joh would check Twitter five minutes before each class to find out what the 45th President had said and how it jibes with 200 years of the judicial branch interpreting and ruling on the Constitution. Acclaimed podcaster Roman Mars (99% Invisible) was so anxious about all the norms and laws being tested in the Trump era that he asked his neighbor, Elizabeth, to explain what was going on in the world from a Constitutional law perspective. Even after Trump left office, there is still so much for Roman to learn. What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law is a weekly, fun, casual Con Law 101 class that uses the tumultuous activities of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to teach us all about the US Constitution.

All music for the show comes from Doomtree, an independent hip-hop collective and record label based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law

We heard you. The chorus of voices asking “where is Con Law? Where is Professor Elizabeth Joh to guide us through this madness? We need it now more than ever!” Well, here it is. We’re back with a special extra-long episode about Trump’s perverted use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process and how judges are trying to hold the administration accountable to the Constitution.

Plus, we announce the launch of The 99% Invisible Breakdown: The Constitution, where Elizabeth and Roman will tackle a different section of this 7600-word document each month, treating the Constitution as a text to be analyzed.

The second half of each Breakdown episode will be an installment of What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law. That portion will continue to be available here, in this feed.

The Return of Con Law

Welcome to “What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law"! Every week Roman Mars (99% Invisible) will host a fun, casual Con Law 101 class that uses the tumultuous and erratic activities of the executive branch under Trump to teach us all about the US Constitution.

Intro to What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law

Back in February 2017, Trump tweeted a criticism of the “so-called judge” who blocked the enforcement of his travel ban. Why does the president have to listen to what the courts say? We’re going to tell the story of a key moment in history when the president (Truman, in this case) and the court strongly disagreed.

Judicial Legitimacy

The US Constitution has a clause that describes how the president can hire certain political appointees with the advice and consent of the Senate. It doesn’t say when the president can fire someone. We take a look at recent Trump firings and put them in context of Supreme Court cases where the court both upheld and denied the president’s right to fire an executive branch employee. Even if a president has the constitutional power to fire someone, it doesn’t mean there aren’t political and legal consequences of the action.

The Appointments Clause and Removal Power

There are reports that the Trump administration is being investigated for obstruction of justice. This has led a lot of people to wonder if the Constitution’s presidential pardon power could be used to absolve members of his administration, or even himself, from criminal charges. And what does the Constitution say about how a pardon has to be presented? Can Trump pardon someone with a tweet?

Pardon Power

In an executive order, Trump threatened to withhold federal money from any place acting as a “sanctuary city.” Supreme Court rulings over the 20th century have ruled in different ways on how federal money can be used to influence the behavior of local governments. When it comes to the Spending Clause, how coercive is too coercive?

The Spending Clause

There have already been a few high profile lawsuits against President Trump and the first defense against such a lawsuit is to claim that the president cannot be sued in civil court. But it turns out, the Supreme Court has ruled different ways on whether or not the president is immune from lawsuits. We look a three cases from history and hear how they’re being used to argue for and against the current cases filed against Trump.

Presidential Immunity

The Constitution says that a “person holding any office of profit or trust” cannot accept gifts from any foreign state. In Article II, it also says the president specifically cannot accept gifts from “United States, or any of them.” If Trump businesses profit from a foreign or domestic state, is that a violation of either one of the emolument clauses? It’s hard to say, because there is literally no case law when it comes the emoluments clause. None!

The Emoluments Clauses

The Constitution says that the president can appoint important executive positions with the advice and consent of the Senate. But what if the Senate is out on recess? Does the president have to wait until the Senate comes back? Today we’ll explore the recess appointment power.

Recess Appointment Power

To build a wall, Trump is going to need to seize private land. The Constitution has something to say about that and it’s known as the Takings Clause.

The Takings Clause

On April 4th (that’s tomorrow as I record this) former President Trump is expected to be arraigned in a Manhattan court room. He was indicted by a New York grand jury last week but the exact charges against him remain unknown until he appears in court. On Thursday last week, Elizabeth Joh and I recorded an episode all about the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into Trump’s alleged hush money payments and the New York grand jury deliberations. About an hour after we finished that recording, the grand jury indictment was announced. All the reporting so far has indicated that the charges and circumstances around the alleged crimes conform to everything we discussed on March 30th last week, so I thought releasing this was still valuable even though it’s a developing story.

On the Eve of Trump's Arraignment

Lyssna när som helst, var som helst

Andra podcasts som du kanske gillar...