A chicken counter, a wheat field, and a school-zone arrest shouldn’t define the reach of federal power—but they do. We unpack how a few pivotal cases turned the Commerce Clause from a narrow trade rule into the engine of modern regulation, and where the Court has since tried to tap the brakes without stalling the system.

We start with Schechter Poultry’s unanimous stand against federal micromanagement of a local butcher, then pivot to Wickard v. Filburn, where the justices embraced the aggregation principle: if lots of people act locally, the nationwide market moves, and Congress can act. That shift greenlit much of the New Deal order and still underwrites environmental rules, labor standards, and agriculture policy. We track the federalism pushback that followed, culminating in United States v. Lopez, which declared that guns near schools are a safety concern, not economic activity, and thus beyond the commerce power. From there, we navigate Gonzales v. Raich, where the Court treated homegrown marijuana as part of a broader market Congress aimed to suppress, showing that goods and markets remain squarely within reach even when activity looks local.

We close with NFIB v. Sebelius and the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate: Congress cannot force people into commerce to regulate them under the Commerce Clause, but a tax can achieve similar aims. Along the way, we highlight the competing logics—macroeconomic effects versus state police powers—and the practical politics that shape how Congress drafts laws to survive review. If you’ve ever wondered why federal rules can touch your farm, your storefront, or your clinic, this story explains the path from text to doctrine to daily life.

Subscribe for more sharp constitutional deep dives, share this episode with someone who loves a good legal plot twist, and tell us: where should the line between commerce and control be drawn?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Think you know Citizens United? The headlines got the heat, but the holding was far narrower than the myth. We walk through the real story—what the Court protected, what it left alone, and why the biggest shift in campaign money came from a different case altogether.

We start with the foundation set by Buckley v. Valeo, where the Court split campaign finance into two buckets: contributions to candidates, which can be limited to deter corruption, and independent expenditures, which are protected political speech. From there, we explain how McCain–Feingold tried to fence off the final days before elections by forcing certain speakers—non-media corporations—to route messages through PACs, all while keeping disclosure rules in place. That’s the backdrop for Citizens United, a case about a group wanting to release a film critical of a presidential candidate near an election. The majority framed that as core political speech and rejected a law that singled out specific speakers during the most crucial window for voters.

Here’s the twist: the ruling did not grant corporations unlimited power to bankroll candidates or say that “money is speech.” Coordination still turns spending into a restricted contribution, and contribution caps remain intact for direct support. The real engine of super PAC dominance was SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a lower court decision that treated donations to independent-expenditure-only committees as uncapped. That interpretation, left unchallenged, opened the floodgates for unlimited money just outside campaign walls while preserving the legal fiction of “no coordination.”

Along the way, we explore disclosure, the media exemption, Justice Stevens’s time-place-manner argument, and Justice Thomas’s concerns about chilling speech. We also dig into how super PACs operate in practice, why transparency matters for voter trust, and where smart reforms could land—tightening coordination definitions, stress-testing contribution limits to outside groups, and strengthening real-time disclosures. If you’ve wondered why elections feel louder and pricier than ever, and where the law drew—and blurred—the lines, this breakdown gives you the map.

If this helped clarify the difference between Citizens United and SpeechNow, follow the show, share with a friend who loves politics, and leave a quick review to tell us what case we should tackle next.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

The ground under the Second Amendment keeps shifting—and the story is bigger than a single case. With Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, we walk through the decisions that rewrote the playbook: Heller’s recognition of an individual right, McDonald’s incorporation against the states, Bruin’s insistence on a history-and-tradition test, and Rahimi’s controversial turn toward preventive disarmament for those deemed dangerous. Along the way, we unpack why courts once avoided the Second Amendment, how the Fourteenth Amendment became the vehicle for applying it to state laws, and why lower courts swung from broad deference to tighter scrutiny and back again.

We dig into the mechanics of constitutional tests—what counts as a historical analogue, when modern public safety claims carry weight, and how a single sentence in a majority opinion can steer years of litigation. Professor Lund explains why Rahimi, despite its popular appeal, may blur the very standard Bruin tried to clarify, reviving the kind of judicial balancing that Heller warned against. That tension sets the stage for what comes next, because the doctrine is no longer just about muskets and militia; it is about how courts translate old principles to new realities without letting policy preferences masquerade as history.

Looking forward, we preview two cases with outsized impact: Hawaii’s rule that bars carry on private property without explicit permission, and the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users. Both raise high-stakes questions about practical self-defense, public safety, and the limits of historical reasoning. If you care about constitutional law, public policy, or teaching these issues in the classroom, this conversation offers a clear map of where the law has been—and the signals to watch as the Court charts the road ahead. If the episode resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to help others find thoughtful legal analysis.

Professor Lund recommends The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for more, including the section on the Second Amendment that he authored. 

More from Professor Lund Here

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

What happens when a single swing opinion steers higher education for decades—and then the Court changes course? We unpack the legal journey from Bakke’s fragmented ruling to the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, tracing how Justice Powell’s narrow vision of “holistic” diversity took root, evolved in Grutter and Gratz, and ultimately ran into a stricter equal protection and Title VI jurisprudence. Along the way, we break down why quotas were off-limits, how individualized review became the gold standard, and where the latest majority says universities went too far.

With Dr. Beienberg, we revisit the key legal hooks—strict scrutiny, compelling interest, and narrow tailoring—and the uneasy alliance between academic freedom and constitutional limits. We examine the arguments that shaped the field: diversity as an educational benefit versus remediation for generalized discrimination; the role of federal funding under Title VI; and the competing opinions from O’Connor, Roberts, Sotomayor, Jackson, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The Asian American claims at the center of SFFA make the human stakes concrete, raising hard questions about zero-sum admissions, opaque ratings, and what “holistic” truly means when opportunities are finite.

Looking forward, we map practical, race-neutral strategies that universities can pursue without running afoul of the Court: expanding class sizes, rethinking testing, leveraging percent plans, strengthening need-based aid, recruiting across underserved regions, and valuing first-generation and socioeconomic indicators. The message is clear: if diversity remains a goal, institutions must prove that their means are lawful, measurable, and tightly fitted to that end. Subscribe, share, and tell us where you stand on the future of admissions—what solutions would you trust to balance fairness, opportunity, and excellence?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A tiny truancy fine opened a constitutional door that still shapes classrooms today. We unpack Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 1972 Supreme Court case where Old Order Amish parents won a free exercise exemption from compulsory high school, and explore how that ruling moved from a narrow carve-out to a live wire in public education. Along the way, we surface the question Justice Douglas couldn’t let go: when parental faith guides a child’s schooling, what room is left for the child’s own future?

We start with the facts on the ground: Amish families who embraced eighth grade but resisted two more years they believed would erode their religious community. The Court’s opinion praised a law-abiding, self-sufficient tradition and concluded Wisconsin lacked a compelling reason to force attendance to sixteen. That framing elevated parental religious liberty while leaving students’ independent interests largely unaddressed, assuming the teenagers’ preferences matched their parents and that practical training would suffice for adult choices beyond the community.

Then the ground shifts. For years, lower courts treated Yoder as an outlier. Now, with Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court reads Yoder as a broad principle: parents may seek relief when school content threatens their religious teaching. That move transforms Yoder from a rural attendance dispute into a modern template for curricular opt-outs, from LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks to other contested topics. We examine what this means for teachers, administrators, and families trying to keep classrooms coherent and inclusive while respecting sincere faith claims. Can schools offer meaningful alternatives without hollowing out core learning? How do we prevent opt-outs from stigmatizing students or shrinking the civic curriculum?

We close by mapping a path forward. Evidence-based pedagogy, transparent communication, and narrowly tailored accommodations can honor religious liberty while protecting student learning and dignity. The hard part is the child-centered question at the heart of this story: safeguarding a young person’s horizon of choice. If this conversation helps you see the stakes—and the nuances—more clearly, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review with your take on where the line should be drawn.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A 22-word morning prayer, written by New York’s Board of Regents, ignited one of the most significant constitutional rulings of the last century. We sit down with Professor Katskee to unpack Engel v. Vitale and the First Amendment principles it cemented: government cannot compose or sponsor official prayers, and genuine religious liberty flourishes when the state steps back. From the text of the establishment and free exercise clauses to the human realities inside classrooms, we explore what neutrality actually means for students, teachers, and families.

We walk through the case’s path to the Supreme Court, why “non-denominational” does not solve the problem, and how the Court grounded its reasoning in history. England’s established church and the Book of Common Prayer show what happens when politics and piety fuse: factions battle for control, dissent is punished, and faith bends toward power. Drawing on Madison and Roger Williams, we show why a union of government and religion degrades both, and how neutrality protects devout believers, minority traditions, and nonbelievers alike.

The conversation then turns to today’s legal landscape. Recent rulings often treat free exercise and establishment as if they sit on a seesaw, elevating one by pushing down the other. We break down why that framing risks privileging majority faith practices while narrowing the Establishment Clause to a shadow of its former self. Instead, Engel points to a durable balance: protect student religious expression without letting public institutions script worship. For parents, educators, and citizens, the takeaway is clear—schools can be open to personal faith while remaining officially neutral. If this conversation challenged your assumptions or clarified the stakes, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to keep these deep dives coming.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A simple black armband became a turning point for student rights. We sit down with Mary Beth Tinker to revisit the 1965 protest that led to Tinker v. Des Moines and the Supreme Court’s declaration that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. Alongside Mary Beth, Pennsylvania civic educator Shannon Salter brings the story into today’s classrooms, where free speech collides with dress codes, book bans, social media, and the daily realities of learning in community.

Across this conversation, we unpack what the First Amendment means for young people right now: the boundary between speech and disruption, the often overlooked right to hear, and the difference between adult comfort and student liberty. Shannon shares field-tested strategies for elevating student voice—protocols that reward listening over winning, projects that connect learning to local impact, and governance roles that let students help shape their schools. Mary Beth ties civic courage to well-being, showing how advocacy builds confidence, connection, and care. Together, we trace how youth voice has moved city services, reoriented policy conversations, and kept democratic values visible in the places where they matter most.

If you’re an educator, student, or parent wondering how to hold space for hard conversations without losing the thread of learning, you’ll find practical tools and real stories here. If you’re curious why Tinker still matters more than five decades later, you’ll hear how every generation keeps rights alive by using them. Listen, share with someone who cares about student voice, and leave a review to help others find the show. Your feedback helps us keep building a community that protects speech, nurtures curiosity, and invites young people to lead.

Illinois Democracy Hub:  Current and Societal Issue Discussion Toolkit<https://www.illinoiscivics.org/curriculum-toolkit/current-and-societal-issue-discussions/>

Sphere Education: Principles of Civil Discourse Primer<https://www.sphere-ed.org/publication/principles-civil-discourse-primer>

Civil Discourse<https://www.corwin.com/books/civil-discourse-279127?srsltid=AfmBOor9pzuJmefZ940fUOTWSkgWSuaFEOXhYWcA6G4qEHOVv831C9gO>, by Joe Schmidt and Nichelle Pinkney<https://www.sphere-ed.org/publication/principles-civil-discourse-primer><https://www.illinoiscivics.org/curriculum-toolkit/current-and-societal-issue-discussions/>

Mercatus Center Pluralist Lab Resources<https://www.mercatus.org/tags/pluralism-and-civil-exchange>, including documentary "Undivided"

Generation Citizen<https://www.generationcitizen.org/>

Bill of Rights Institute: My Impact Challenge?<https://billofrightsinstitute.org/my-impact-challenge?gad_source=1&gad_camp

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

We trace the 15-day showdown over the Pentagon Papers and how the Supreme Court drew a bright line against prior restraint. The story moves from Ellsberg’s leak to the Court’s ruling that the press serves the governed, not the governors.

• Vietnam-era context and collapsing public trust
• Ellsberg’s decision to copy and share the study
• The Times publishes and triggers an emergency court fight
• What prior restraint means and why courts disfavor it
• Near v. Minnesota as the legal foundation
• The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision and key opinions
• How the ruling guides modern leak coverage
• The difference between embarrassment and immediate harm
• Why transparency is the default in a democracy
• The press as a watchdog serving the public

If you enjoyed this story, share it with someone who loves history, law, or great journalism

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Professor Samantha Barbas traces how New York Times v. Sullivan reshaped libel law, empowered investigative reporting, and protected the civil rights movement, then tests the standard against today’s social media landscape. She unpacks “actual malice,” reputation, and current calls to revisit the ruling.

What you will learn in this episode:

• what libel is and why it matters
• the meaning of actual malice as reckless disregard
• civil rights origins of the Sullivan decision
• how the ruling liberated investigative journalism
• modern critiques from reputation to originalism
• social media’s global scale of harm
• protection for journalists, bloggers, and everyday speakers
• the ongoing balance between speech and reputation

 Actual Malice Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan. 

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Imagine sharing a district with nine times as many people as the voters next door and getting the same single representative. That stark imbalance was common before Baker v. Carr, and it’s the starting point for our deep dive into how the Supreme Court reshaped representation, why one person, one vote became the baseline, and where the law is drifting now.

We sit down with Professor Stephen Wermiel to unpack the two-step process that changed modern apportionment. First came Baker v. Carr in 1962, which opened the courthouse doors by declaring that extreme population disparities in legislative districts can violate the Equal Protection Clause. Then, in Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the court set the rule: districts must be drawn with roughly equal populations. That pairing forced states to redraw maps nationwide, bringing urban and rural representation closer to parity and making legislative power track people, not old boundaries.

But equal headcounts didn’t end the fight over power. We explore how partisan gerrymandering flourished within the population rule, as mapmakers learned to pack and crack voters to entrench party control. The Court has largely walled off federal challenges to partisan gerrymanders, holding that these disputes don’t present manageable constitutional standards. At the same time, we dig into the line the Court did draw: racial gerrymandering and vote dilution. For decades, voters could challenge maps that dispersed minority communities to weaken their voice under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Now, a pending case from Louisiana could narrow or even close that pathway, signaling a significant shift in how racial vote dilution claims are treated in federal court.

Across the conversation, we connect doctrine to real-world stakes: school funding, roads, taxes, and who gets heard at the Capitol. You’ll come away with a clear map of how Baker v. Carr changed the game, why Reynolds v. Sims matters every redistricting cycle, and what today’s legal battles could mean for fair representation tomorrow. If conversations about maps, power, and democracy matter to you, press play, share this with a friend, and leave a quick review to help others find the show.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A nine-page Supreme Court opinion changed the course of American education—and it wasn’t an accident. We walk through the legal strategy that chipped away at Plessy, the political maneuvering that elevated Earl Warren, and the consolidated cases that gave Brown its force. From the NAACP’s focus on the false promise of “equal” to South Carolina’s attempt to preserve segregation by upgrading Black schools, the road to 1954 was crowded with tactics, pressure, and surprising alliances.

Once Warren took the helm, the Court aimed for clarity over casebook citations. Brown I is short by design, rejecting the idea that state-enforced separation could ever be equal because it stamps children with a badge of inferiority. The harder part came next: Brown II’s mandate to desegregate “with all deliberate speed.” That phrase left lower courts to navigate politics and logistics without a strict timetable. We explore how Southern federal judges became quiet heroes, why some states chose massive resistance, and how President Eisenhower’s intervention in Little Rock signaled federal resolve.

We also connect the dots with Bolling v. Sharpe, where the Court used the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply equal protection principles to federal schools in Washington, D.C., and we trace the aftermath through Cooper v. Aaron, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. Along the way, we spotlight the advocates who shaped the moment—John Davis for the defenders of segregation and Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP—showing how courtroom craft and constitutional vision converged. Brown did not finish the work, but it reset the law’s moral compass and gave the country a common language for equality. If this journey through law, politics, and principle resonated, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us what part of Brown’s story you think matters most today.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Free speech law didn’t spring fully formed; it was hammered out case by case, crisis by crisis. We unpack how Schenck v. United States, a 1919 wartime case that actually upheld a conviction, planted the “clear and present danger” idea and nudged the Court away from the sweeping “bad tendency” rule. From there, we follow the thread through Holmes and Brandeis, whose dissents helped build a sturdier shield for political dissent, all the way to Brandenburg v. Ohio and its demanding standard: only speech intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action can be punished.

Along the way, we make sense of the narrow carve-outs—fighting words, obscenity, libel—and why courts resist expanding them to swallow political speech. We dive into equality-era pressures, campus speech codes, and the enduring myth of a “hate speech” exception. Matal v. Tam takes center stage as a modern proof that offensive speech is still protected, even when it stings, because pluralism requires resilience, not censorship.

Then we turn to the digital battleground. Social media, Section 230, algorithmic amplification, and the specter of real-world harm complicate the old doctrines. We explore what government can and cannot do, what platforms may choose to moderate, and how transparency and user control might reduce harm without trampling the First Amendment. If you’re a student, educator, or curious citizen, you’ll leave with a clearer map: where the lines are, why intent and imminence matter, and how to defend open debate while pushing back against true threats and incitement.

If this conversation helped clarify the free speech landscape, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves civics, and leave a quick review telling us where you’d draw the line.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A Supreme Court tried to settle the slavery question and instead set the country ablaze. We unpack Dred Scott v. Sandford with Dr. Beinberg, tracing how a case about one man’s claim to freedom morphed into a sweeping judgment that denied Black citizenship, stripped Congress of authority over the territories, and elevated slaveholding to a protected property right. Rather than take a narrow path, the Court chose a maximal ruling that collided with text, history, and public sentiment—and pushed a polarized nation closer to war.

We walk through the three pillars of the decision and why they mattered far beyond the courtroom. You’ll hear how Justice Nelson’s technical route could have ended the case quietly, and how Chief Justice Taney’s opinion reached for a national answer that rested on brittle historical claims. The dissents by Justices McLean and Curtis provide the corrective: evidence that free Black Americans were citizens and voters in multiple founding-era states, and that Congress’s power over the territories was broad and longstanding. That clash between original public meaning and speculative intent reveals how bad history can become bad law.

The political stakes were enormous. With James Buchanan signaling deference to a decision he seemed to expect, the North saw a “slave power” at work as the ruling effectively declared the Republican platform unconstitutional. Yet within a decade, the 13th and 14th Amendments erased the decision’s core, establishing birthright citizenship and ending slavery’s legal foundation. We connect those dots to show how constitutional failure can prompt constitutional repair, and why the case still shapes debates about judicial overreach, historical method, and national power.

If you found this deep dive useful, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which part changed how you see the Constitution.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A steamboat monopoly, a federal license, and a constitutional power that still shapes our economy—this is the story of Gibbons v. Ogden told through clear facts and sharp reasoning. We dig into how a seemingly straightforward dispute over navigation between New York and New Jersey became a landmark on the meaning of the Commerce Clause and the reach of federal supremacy.

We walk through the clash of dueling licenses and explain why navigation counts as commerce when routes cross state lines. From there, we unpack Chief Justice Marshall’s move away from “strict construction,” his broader definition of commerce as traffic and intercourse, and his pivotal reading of “among the several states” as intermingled activity that does not stop at border lines. Those words solved the case, but they also set the stage for future fights over railroads, highways, and modern markets that span supply chains far beyond any one state’s boundary.

Then we tackle the language that launched a thousand citations: Marshall’s distinction between national “external” concerns and “completely internal” state commerce. That neat line sounds clear until you ask how often commerce is truly sealed within one state. We show why this dicta mattered, how it influenced twentieth‑century expansions and modern limits, and why the facts here—major rivers, multi‑state routes, and Congress’s explicit licensing law—drive a clean holding of federal preemption. We also mark the boundary between this case and the dormant Commerce Clause, where courts police state burdens on interstate trade when Congress has not acted.

If you care about how federal power keeps a national market from fracturing—whether on rivers, rails, or digital platforms—this conversation gives you a usable map. Enjoy the deep dive, and if it helped clarify a classic case, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to support more clear‑eyed civics.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A state tax, a national bank, and a constitutional reckoning—this is the moment McCulloch v. Maryland turned a revenue measure into a blueprint for federal power. We bring Dr. Beienberg back to trace the story from the first bank fight of the 1790s through the War of 1812 and into Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion, showing how a practical question about taxing a federal institution became a lasting lesson on supremacy and implied powers.

We dig into the core debate that split Jefferson and Hamilton: What does “necessary and proper” really mean? Jefferson wanted “necessary” to be indispensable; Hamilton argued for useful and appropriate. Madison’s experience running a war moved him from skepticism to support for a bank, setting the stage for Congress to recharter the Second Bank. When Maryland tried to tax it, the Court had to decide whether a state could burden the chosen means of executing enumerated powers like taxation, borrowing, and regulating commerce. Marshall answered with a framework that still governs: federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution trump conflicting state laws, and Congress may choose means that are appropriate and plainly adapted to legitimate ends, not a pretext for unrelated aims.

Along the way, we explore why Marshall’s majestic writing made McCulloch endlessly quotable and endlessly arguable. Critics, including Madison, feared not the holding but the sweep of the language—phrases that later courts would invoke to justify broader federal authority under the Commerce Clause. We tie those concerns to modern debates about implied powers, proportionality, and constitutional limits, highlighting how McCulloch can be read to support energetic national solutions while insisting on a real connection to enumerated powers.

If you care about how Congress builds programs, how states push back, and how courts police the boundary, this conversation gives you the tools to read McCulloch with nuance. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves constitutional history, and leave a quick review telling us how you read “necessary and proper.”

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A delivered commission goes missing, a new Chief Justice takes the bench, and a dry jurisdictional dispute turns into a lodestar for American constitutional law. We dive into Marbury v. Madison to unpack what John Marshall actually did: not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but clarify why a written Constitution demands an independent check when statutes collide with higher law.

We walk through the case’s colorful backstory to set the stage, then focus on the heart of the opinion—constitutional supremacy and the judiciary’s limited but essential role. Marshall’s choice is stark: either the Constitution is superior law or Congress can change foundational rules by ordinary legislation. From that premise flows a judicial duty anchored in the oath, constrained to real “cases or controversies,” and aimed at applying the law faithfully rather than issuing political advice. Along the way, we connect the dots to Federalist 78, the ratifying conventions, and Anti-Federalist critiques like Brutus, showing how review was expected even before Marbury gave it durable language.

We also take on the tired activism-versus-restraint frame. If “restraint” means leaving unconstitutional laws in place, it betrays the very supremacy Marshall defended. The sharper question is fidelity: Did the court get the Constitution right, using principled methods and respecting institutional limits? Seen through that lens, Marbury becomes a case study in judicial responsibility—neither power grab nor passivity, but a disciplined insistence that the Constitution is law, not aspiration.

If you enjoy constitutional deep dives with clear takeaways you can use in class, practice, or civic life, follow the show, share this episode with a friend, and leave a review with your biggest question about judicial review.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A holiday felt so fixed that few imagined it could move—until the president did exactly that. We dive into the surprising civic journey of Thanksgiving, from Sarah Josepha Hale’s decades-long campaign that convinced Abraham Lincoln to set a national day, to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1939 decision to shift the date for economic recovery—and the two-year “Franksgiving” saga that followed. What started as editorials and proclamations became a national debate over presidential power, state autonomy, business pressure, and the role of Congress in settling cultural controversy.

We unpack why Lincoln’s wartime proclamation landed when it did, how Hale used media influence and persistent outreach to governors and presidents to build consensus, and why the Great Depression turned the holiday calendar into a policy lever. The response to FDR’s change—split observances, disrupted school schedules and football games, and blistering headlines—reveals how quickly tradition collides with practicality. The story culminates in 1941, when Congress codified the fourth Thursday in November, providing legal clarity and a shared rhythm for the country on the eve of World War II.

Along the way, we reflect on how “soft” customs harden into law, why federalism can make even a feast political, and what modern rituals—like the presidential turkey pardon, formalized by George H. W. Bush in 1989—say about the power of symbolism in American civic life. If you’re curious how advocacy, executive action, and legislation weave together to shape the calendar we live by, this is your guide to the civics behind your holiday table.

Enjoying the show? Follow, rate, and share it with someone planning their menu, and tell us: should leaders protect tradition or adapt it when the moment demands change?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Gratitude didn’t just arrive with pumpkin pie; it was engineered through careful words and bold timing. We sit down with Dr. Paris Careese to explore how presidential proclamations by George Washington in 1789 and Abraham Lincoln in 1863 shaped Thanksgiving into a unifying civic ritual—and why those choices still influence how we gather, pray, and reflect today. From early congressional requests to wartime appeals for humility, the story of Thanksgiving doubles as a masterclass in statesmanship.

We start with Washington’s first proclamation, issued shortly after Congress drafted the religion clauses of the First Amendment. His language—monotheistic yet nonsectarian—offers thanks for the chance to “establish a form of government for their safety and happiness,” and invites a nation to seek pardon for “our national and other transgressions.” That phrasing marries gratitude with accountability while honoring religious liberty. We unpack how a proclamation differs from a law, why Congress initiated the request, and how Washington’s measured civil-religious tone set a durable pattern for public life.

Then we turn to Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation, crafted in the thick of the Civil War. Lincoln credits “the Most High God” for national blessings even as he recognizes anger “for our sins,” previewing the moral vision of his Second Inaugural. We discuss Sarah Josepha Hale’s campaign for a national Thanksgiving, Lincoln’s pivot from legal argument to moral leadership, and how this rhetoric prepared the ground for reconciliation rather than punishment. Along the way, we reflect on what endures—pluralism, humility, communal gratitude—and how modern traditions, from service to the turkey centerpiece, echo the civic aims of the past.

If you care about American history, religious liberty, and the quiet power of shared rituals, this conversation will change how you experience November. Listen, share with a friend who loves civic ideas, and leave a review telling us which presidential line resonated most. Subscribe for more episodes that connect everyday traditions to the Constitution, culture, and the common good.

Source: https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/thanksgiving; George Washington’s Mount Vernon.

See also National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091; and Allen, ed., George Washington: A Collection (Liberty Fund, 1988), 534-35

Source: National Archives, at https://education.blogs.archives.gov/2020/11/22/lincolns-thanksgiving-proclamation/; https://docsteach.org/document/lincoln-thanksgiving-proclamation/

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

The loudest fights about the Supreme Court are usually about outcomes. We pull back the curtain on the methods that shape those outcomes—text, history, precedent, and values—and explain how different approaches to constitutional interpretation drive very different answers to the same question.

We start with textualism as the shared baseline: everyone claims fidelity to the words. From there, we dive into originalism’s focus on public meaning at the time of adoption, walking through the evidence historians and lawyers actually use—ratification debates, period dictionaries, and legal practice. That’s where examples like “domestic violence” and the word among in the Commerce Clause reveal how small linguistic shifts can have big constitutional stakes. We also tackle the internal tension among originalists over when to honor long-settled precedent that conflicts with historical meaning.

Then we turn to doctrinalism and living constitutionalism. Doctrinalism prizes stability, treating precedent as the main guide for today’s disputes. Living constitutionalism ranges from doctrine-first approaches to value-forward readings that elevate principles like liberty, equality, dignity, and privacy. We lay out the tradeoffs without the caricatures: originalism risks rigidity but secures democratic legitimacy through Article V, while living approaches offer adaptability at the cost of giving judges more room to craft policy under the banner of principle.

We also retire the stale activism versus restraint cliché. Counting how often the Court strikes laws tells us little about whether it follows the right sources in the right order. And yes, we unpack the headline-ready “the Constitution is dead” line often pinned to Justice Scalia, placing it in context as a critique of free-form updating rather than a dismissal of the text. If you want to understand why today’s opinions read like history seminars—and why that’s healthy for public debate—this conversation is your guide. Subscribe, share, and tell us: which method should lead when text, history, and precedent collide?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A century of episodes calls for a wider lens, and we open it fully: the founding wasn’t just hammered out in halls and pamphlets by famous men—it was argued, nurtured, and lived by women whose ideas changed the course of American liberty. We pull threads from homes and letters into the political tapestry, showing how civic virtue took shape through family, education, economic agency, and public authorship.

We explore Abigail Adams’s push for legal and economic recognition within marriage and household management, Mercy Otis Warren’s “deep cut” anti-federalist critique that helped spur the Bill of Rights, and Phillis Wheatley’s poetry that challenged a nation to confront slavery while speaking the language of freedom. We highlight Martha Washington’s essential leadership in sustaining morale and discipline around the Continental Army, and Deborah Sampson’s service that tested assumptions about who could act as a citizen-soldier. Together, these lives reveal freedom as more than license; it is the disciplined pursuit of the common good.

Rather than treating the founding as a static canon of documents, we frame it as an active conversation. Yes, read the Constitution and Federalist Papers—but also bring in the anti-federalists and the overlooked correspondence where influence travels across friendship, marriage, and print culture. As America approaches 250 years, this broader view makes the era more vivid and useful: plays, poems, letters, and household decisions shaped policy and principle as surely as speeches and votes. If you’re a teacher, student, or curious reader, you’ll find practical ways to study these connections and restore the women who helped build the republic.

If this perspective expanded your view of the founding, follow the show, share this episode with a friend who loves history, and leave a quick review telling us which text changed your mind.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Ever wondered how a member of Congress can shape national policy without casting a floor vote? We sit down with Representative Kimberlyn King Hines, the delegate from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, to explore the real power centers in Washington: committees, markups, and the relationships that decide which ideas move and which ones stall. From drafting legislation to negotiating amendments, she shows how influence is built long before a bill reaches the House floor—and why that matters for communities far from the mainland.

We also pull back the curtain on the Marianas themselves—a remote U.S. territory that many Americans can’t find on a map, yet one with deep cultural roots and strategic significance. Kimberlyn shares that her first months included a lot of educating colleagues on pronunciation and geography, then quickly shifted to policies that fit island realities. We discuss the islands’ push for long-term economic sustainability, where transportation costs and labor shortages shape every decision. When a federal shutdown hits, the shock is immediate: nutrition assistance evaporates, millions stop circulating in the local economy, and small businesses struggle, creating a cascade that threatens essential services.

What stands out most is the Marianas’ cultural compass: seeking the good and caring for one another. That ethic has carried the islands through record typhoons and the pandemic, and it guides Kimberlyn’s approach to governance, centering dignity, practicality, and community resilience. By the end, you’ll see how representation at the edges of the American map tests the strength of our promises—and how thoughtful policy design can bridge the distance between Capitol Hill and the Pacific.

If this conversation expanded your view of American democracy, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review with the most considerable insight you’re taking away. Your support helps more listeners discover voices from every corner of the country.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

What if the founding of the United States could be heard not only in speeches and volleys but in quilts mended by firelight, farm ledgers balanced in winter, and poems that dared to test the nation’s conscience? We open the door to the women who made those sounds and shaped the structure beneath the stories most of us learned in school.

First, we trace Martha Washington’s steady presence at icy encampments, where morale could make or break a campaign. Then we turn to Abigail Adams, whose letters sharpened political thought while her work on the family farm kept a statesman’s world from collapsing at home. Together they show how leadership is sustained by logistics, trust, and partnership. From there, we step into the writing rooms of Mercy Otis Warren and Judith Sargent Murray. Warren’s essays pushed the young republic toward specific freedoms, helping catalyze the Bill of Rights. Murray advanced a clear claim for women’s equal civic capacity, planting seeds for suffrage and education reform long before law caught up.

We also sit with Phillis Wheatley, enslaved yet unflinching, whose poetry praised virtue and quietly exposed the central contradiction of a revolution for liberty that tolerated bondage. Her words reached George Washington and echo forward to abolitionists who later carried the same torch. Rounding out the hour, we highlight a soldier who fought in disguise, endured battlefield wounds, and earned an honorable discharge—proof that courage often hid in plain sight to be allowed to serve at all.

Across these stories, one theme holds: the founding wasn’t only drafted in halls; it was forged by presence, persuasion, and principle. If you’re ready to hear how women’s labor, letters, and lyrics changed the arc of the American experiment, press play. If this conversation expanded your view of the founding era, follow the show, share with a friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find it. Who’s the founding-era woman you think everyone should know?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

We trace Phillis Wheatley’s journey from captivity to literary force, exploring how her poems speak to faith, freedom, and belonging during the American founding. We highlight her craft, the battle to be believed, and why her voice reframes the Revolution.

• capture in Africa and arrival in Boston 
• education in the Wheatley home and early brilliance 
• eulogy poems, public readings, and patronage 
• the publication controversy and authorship “trial” 
• patriotism and British identity in tension 
• faith shaping moral claims about slavery 
• “On Being Brought” and its paradoxes 
• letter to Samson Occom and “modern Egyptians” 
• why literary voices reframe founding politics 
• how to start reading: “To Maecenas” 
• Jefferson’s critique and Wheatley’s enduring merit

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A forgotten voice sharpened the edge of American liberty—she did it with clarity, courage, and a printing press that didn’t always want her words. We sit down with Dr. Kirstin Burkhaugto explore the life and legacy of Judith Sargent Murray, the self-taught Boston writer whose 1790 essay On the Equality of the Sexes argued that women possess the same moral and intellectual capacities as men. Years before Mary Wollstonecraft’s landmark work, Murray was already building a distinctly American case for women’s political equality—rooted in empirical observation, everyday experience, and a Universalist theology that saw all souls as one.

We trace how Murray turned personal frustration into public contribution, growing up in a prominent family where her brother received the education she craved. That slight fuels a relentless autodidact who reads widely, writes cleanly, and navigates a male-dominated publishing world with strategic savvy. Rather than attacking the founders head-on, she dedicated essays to John Adams and leveraged the era’s language of liberty to expand its logic: if rights are universal, they cannot stop at the gender threshold. Along the way, we unpack the Universalist belief that earthly differences do not change the worth of a soul—and how that spiritual framework emboldened a political argument for inclusion.

The conversation lands in the present with fresh relevance. We connect Murray’s claims to modern questions about who gets educated, who leads, and how families balance care with public life. You’ll hear practical pointers for reading her today—start with On the Equality of the Sexes and Sheila Skemp’s biography, The First Lady of Letters—and a candid look at the resistance she faced from literary gatekeepers who tried to mute her voice. If you rethink the founding through a wider lens, this story will change how you hear the word “we.” Subscribe, share with a history-loving friend, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway so more listeners can find these Founding Mothers.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

We trace the life and ideas of Mercy Otis Warren, the writer who helped secure a culture of liberty—and a Bill of Rights—without a seat at the Convention. From a rare classical education to salons with the Sons of Liberty, her pen shaped policy and public virtue.

• Mercy Otis Warren’s early education and family background
• Hosting and influencing the Sons of Liberty network
• Friendship with John Adams and first published poem
• Plays, poems, essays, and a pioneering Revolution history
• Anti‑Federalist critique and Observations on the New Constitution
• Locke’s influence, individual rights, and the need for a Bill of Rights
• Liberty’s dependence on civic virtue and moral restraint
• Recommended readings and biographies to go deeper
• The Otis siblings’ partnership and James Otis Jr.’s curtailed role

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics