We’ve been talking about it since August, but now, “The World Turns to Section Three” as our episode is entitled, and you can preview the SCOTUS arguments with us by reviewing the pundits’ punditry. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ama…

It's up; it's filed. You can read it at akhilamar.com/podcast-2 show notes. And you can hear about it in our latest episode. The Amar brief in Trump v. Anderson is ground-breaking.

The New York Times effectively gives Professor Amar the last word today, the day before oral arguments, as the lead opinion ("op-ed," "guest essay") piece today is his. nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opi…

We have an early - some might say emergency - upload today in an effort to give voice to the arguments that unfortunately weren't voiced at the oral argument Thursday. Part II will follow as soon as possible. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ama…

Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment does restrict the states, but not by preventing them from enforcing the Amendment’s disqualifications for insurrection against the Constitution of the United States.

Rather, it restricts them from not enforcing those disqualifications. It restricts them from electing oath-breaking insurrectionists to state office. It restricts them from choosing oath-breaking insurrectionists as electors for the presidency.

It restricts them from voting for oath-breaking insurrectionist senators and representatives. And it restricts them from electing oath-breaking insurrectionist presidents.

Colorado is not usurping the federal government’s power in disqualifying oath-breaking insurrectionists. It is exercising its concurrent state power to disqualify insurrectionists – power that is conferred upon the State of Colorado by the Constitution of the United States.

Nor is Colorado deciding for the 50 states that the former president is disqualified from the presidency. It is deciding only for Colorado, and only under that state’s law, that the former president is disqualified -- as the U.S. Constitution empowers the State to do,

under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Electors Clause. Just as in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was on the ballot in some states and not in others, and Ralph Nader was on the ballot in some states and not in others in 2000 and 2004,

the Constitution contemplates that the former president might be on the ballot in some states and not in others – certainly in the primaries.

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ama…

The Sweep and Force of Section Three, with Michael Stokes Paulsen, is now out in final form University of Pennsylvania Law Review: scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten…

This week’s episode is up: “What the Concurrences Should Have Said.” Of course, the per curiam majority should have said it too! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ama…

This week we turn to the Trump immunity case; oral arg 4/25. Prof. Amar has written extensively on this and is cited in Jack Smith’s brief. Check out “Immunity Therapy” podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ama…

Big opinions - Rahimi and Moore, guns and taxes. Originalism is on every justice's lips in Rahimi. Where is it in Moore? Understand it all - listen to "The Court's About Face on Originalism." podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ama…

It's four years of Amarica's Constitution! Tomorrow we upload our podcast with Justice Stephen Breyer to mark the occasion - don't miss it! Link to follow tomorrow. For today, we have this reminiscence from our visit to his chambers after arguments in Moore v. US.

It's up! Our fifth season launches in spectacular fashion, as Justice Stephen Breyer joins us for "Justice on the Spot!" podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jus…

What a privilege it was to have Justice Breyer on the show!podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jus…

Trump kept the legal system buzzing this week. We’re tracking it all: court rulings, constitutional stakes, and what might come next. Check out the latest episode of Akhil Reed Amar's podcast and join the conversation. #Constitution #AmaricasConstitution