The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. But what, exactly, does that mean? And has anything changed since the tragedy in Las Vegas?
Stewart speaks with historian Saul Cornell of Fordham University, an expert on the early history of the Constitution, and with Professor James Jacobs of New York University, who questions whether gun control can ever work.
Immigration is a very constitutional issue, as well a matter of great political debate. Sometimes, we forget that it is also a human issue.
Join us as Stewart speaks with three students at the Duncan School of Law at Lincoln Memorial University who came to this country at a very young age. Their stories are poignant, inspiring, and sometimes terrifying.
Each year, the Abraham Lincoln Institute for the Study of Leadership and Public Policy at Lincoln Memorial University hosts the R. Gerald McMurtry Memorial Lecture at LMU's Duncan School of Law.
This year, the topic was Reconstruction, and the focus was Tennessee. Our McMurtry Lecturer was Sam D. Elliott, a lawyer and Civil War historian from Chattanooga. Sam was joined by Professor Stewart Harris, who spoke about secession, and by Dr. Charles Hubbard, who described Abraham Lincoln's many ethical dilemmas.
Join Sam, Charlie, and Stewart as they re-cap and discuss their presentations.
It's been five years since Stewart recorded a Constitution Day episode at Montpelier, and boy, have things changed!
Join him as he walks around the grounds on a spectacular September day, talks to staff members and guests, and even has a chat with President Madison himself.
Kat Imhoff has been the President and CEO of James Madison’s Montpelier for five years. During that time, she’s raised millions of dollars and supervised major improvements to Montpelier's grounds and programs.
Recently, Stewart sat down with her in the brand-new Potter Family Studio at the brand-new Claude Moore Hall at Montpelier's Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution. Stewart and Kat talked all about her many accomplishments, as well as the challenges that lie ahead.
Join us for a fascinating conversation!
Talk of impeachment seems to be in the air these days, at least among Donald Trump's opponents. But is it likely? What, precisely, is the constitutional standard for impeachment?
We talk to David O. Stewart, author of what the Wall Street Journal recently identified as the very best book on the subject. It's called "Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy."
Does it seem to you that the United States is perpetually at war? How did that happen? What, if anything, can we do about it?
Stewart was recently out at Montpelier, where David Adler, the former Director of Boise State University’s Andrus Center for Public Policy, taught a seminar on how the Constitution treats the most significant decision any country can make: whether, and how, to go to war.
The Framers had some very definite ideas on the subject, but modern presidents, and many members of Congress, see it differently.
If the southern states wanted to secede, why didn’t Lincoln simply let them go? One could argue that they were making the same democratic decision that the British American colonies had made in 1776. One could also argue that secession was preferable to war. But Lincoln thought differently, and he was passionate in his belief. Why?
Professor Charles Hubbard, the Director of Lincoln Memorial University’s Abraham Lincoln Institute for the Study of Leadership and Public Policy, tells the fascinating tale.
Can you sue the President of the United States? Sure. But will a court hear the case? In legal terms, is the President immune from civil claims?
We’ll speak with Doug McKechnie, our First Amendment Guy, who’s just written a very timely article on the subject.
We’ll also hear from our good friend, Christopher Phillips, about the latest developments with his ongoing project, Democracy Café.
Do you know the difference between de facto and de jure? They’re Latin terms, the first of which means “in effect,” and the second of which means “according to the law.” The distinction is important, since, generally, there is no constitutional remedy for wrongs that are de facto, only for those that are de jure.
Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute has written a new book, The Color of Law, which exposes the myth that segregated housing patterns in the United States are simply the de facto results of millions of private decisions; he shows that they are very much de jure results of American law.