エピソード

  • The Miranda Question: Rights, Police and Interrogation
    2026/09/19

    "You have the right to remain silent."

    Few Supreme Court decisions have produced words as instantly recognizable as Miranda v. Arizona. But sixty years after the landmark 1966 ruling, the constitutional argument behind those words is still very much alive.

    On this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman examine how Miranda changed police interrogation, why the Supreme Court believed a new safeguard was necessary, and whether the Fifth Amendment actually required the rule the Court created.

    Dr. Richard Leo, professor of law and psychology at the University of San Francisco, takes us through the history of police interrogation — from the physical brutality of the old "third degree" to psychological coercion, false confessions, and the modern interrogation room. He explains why the Court sought a clear rule and why, despite early warnings that Miranda would cripple law enforcement, police departments largely adapted.

    Then Professor Tom Hogan of South Texas College of Law approaches the case from a different constitutional perspective. Before Miranda, courts already excluded involuntary confessions obtained through physical or extreme psychological coercion. Hogan asks whether the Warren Court went beyond the text and original meaning of the Fifth Amendment by creating an additional constitutional rule.

    Along the way, we revisit the Supreme Court's later decision in Dickerson v. United States, the continuing importance of confessions in criminal investigations, and the tension between protecting suspects and giving law enforcement the tools to solve serious crimes.

    Sixty years later, Miranda remains the law — and part of the American vocabulary. But the deeper question remains: even if Miranda is a good rule, was it the Supreme Court's rule to make?

    続きを読む 一部表示
    59 分
  • The Exception: The 13th Amendment and Prison Labor
    2026/09/12

    The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in America — but not completely.

    Buried in its text is an exception allowing involuntary servitude "as a punishment for crime." That language would become enormously consequential after the Civil War, as Southern states built systems of Black Codes, vagrancy laws, convict leasing, and prison labor that pushed thousands of newly freed Black Americans back into conditions that often looked strikingly similar to slavery.

    Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman are joined first by Damon Root, senior editor at Reason and author of Emancipation War, to trace the political fight that produced the 13th Amendment, Abraham Lincoln's evolution on slavery, and why the amendment's punishment exception was included in the first place.

    Then University of Mississippi Associate Professor Marvin King examines what happened after ratification — how Reconstruction gave way to new systems of racial and economic control, how the criminal justice system became part of that structure, and how those choices helped shape inequality for generations.

    Finally, the episode looks at the modern effort to remove slavery and involuntary-servitude exceptions from state constitutions — and why, more than 160 years later, the debate over the 13th Amendment is still not over.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    56 分
  • Forgotten Founders II
    2026/09/05

    The story of America's founding is usually told through the same handful of names: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton and Franklin. But the creation of the United States involved a much larger cast—and some of the men who helped shape the country have nearly disappeared from popular memory.

    In the second installment of our "Forgotten Founders" series, America at 250: Due Diligence examines the lives and legacies of James Wilson and Roger Sherman, two enormously influential founders whose contributions remain far less familiar than those of their more celebrated contemporaries.

    James Wilson signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, became one of the first justices of the United States Supreme Court and played a central role at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He argued passionately for popular sovereignty and a government deriving its authority directly from the people. Wilson helped put the famous words "We the People" at the beginning of the Constitution and advocated for the direct election of the president long before such an idea had widespread support.

    Yet Wilson's story ended dramatically. After becoming deeply entangled in land speculation and debt, the sitting Supreme Court justice was imprisoned for his debts, fled his creditors and eventually died of malaria while hiding in the back room of a tavern in North Carolina.

    Jesse Wegman, author of The Lost Founder: James Wilson and the Forgotten Fight for a People's Constitution, joins Steve Herman and Bill Bernardoni to explain how Wilson became one of the most important legal and political thinkers of the founding era—and how his extraordinary fall helped erase him from the national story.

    Then, Professor Mark David Hall turns to Roger Sherman, a self-taught Connecticut lawyer and statesman whose résumé rivals virtually anyone of the founding generation.

    Sherman served on the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, the committee that developed the Articles of Confederation and the Board of War—all during 1776. He later became a key figure at the Constitutional Convention, where he helped shape the compromise between large and small states and pushed for a federal government based on limited, enumerated powers.

    Sherman continued shaping the new government after ratification, serving in Congress and playing an important role in the development of the Bill of Rights. The only known surviving handwritten working draft of the Bill of Rights is in Sherman's hand.

    Hall, editor of The Collected Works of Roger Sherman and co-editor of America's Forgotten Founders, discusses Sherman's political philosophy, religious beliefs, concerns about concentrated federal power and the reasons such an influential figure eventually faded from popular memory.

    Together, Wilson and Sherman reveal a founding generation far larger, more complicated and more interesting than the familiar pantheon of five or six famous names.

    Why do some founders become national icons while others disappear? And how different would our understanding of the Constitution be if we remembered the people who helped create it?

    続きを読む 一部表示
    59 分
  • I Plead the Fifth
    2026/08/29

    "I plead the Fifth."

    It's one of the most recognizable phrases in American law — and one of the most misunderstood.

    In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman look at how the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination became intertwined with guilt in the American imagination.

    Brandeis University professor Thomas Doherty takes us back to the 1947 Hollywood hearings, when the Hollywood Ten refused to answer questions from the House Un-American Activities Committee and ultimately went to prison for contempt of Congress. From there, the story moves to mob boss Frank Costello, the televised Kefauver hearings and the McCarthy era, when congressional investigations became national television events and "taking the Fifth" took on a meaning far beyond the courtroom.

    Then constitutional scholar Jeffrey Rosen, former president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and a professor at George Washington University, traces the protection against self-incrimination back to England's Star Chamber and explains what the Fifth Amendment actually protects — in criminal cases, congressional hearings and an era of cell phones, digital records and electronic evidence.

    From Frank Costello and Joseph McCarthy to Oliver North and Anthony Fauci, it's a look at why Americans have been trained to hear silence as an admission of guilt — even though the Constitution says it isn't one.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • Forgotten Founders
    2026/08/22

    Everyone knows Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Franklin. But some of the people who played crucial roles in creating the United States have almost disappeared from the story.

    In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Steve Herman and Bill Bernardoni look at two of the most consequential—and most overlooked—figures of the founding generation: John Dickinson and Gouverneur Morris.

    Historian Dr. Jane Calvert, director and chief editor of the John Dickinson Writings Project and author of Penman of the Founding, explains how Dickinson became one of the most famous Americans of the revolutionary era, why he refused to support independence when Congress voted in 1776, and why his decision to abstain was very different from opposing the Revolution. She also discusses Dickinson's military service, his antislavery efforts, his influential political writings and how John Adams helped shape the negative reputation that followed him for generations.

    Then Syracuse University professor Dennis Rasmussen, author of The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter, introduces listeners to one of the most colorful characters at the Constitutional Convention. Morris spoke more often and proposed more motions than any other delegate and ultimately became the principal draftsman of the Constitution's final text—including the words "We the People." Rasmussen explores Morris' opposition to slavery, his vision of a strong national government and presidency, his remarkable career in revolutionary France, and the mystery of why someone so central to the Constitution remains largely unknown today.

    Two founders who helped shape the American Revolution and the Constitution. Two very different reasons they faded from public memory. And a larger question: Who gets remembered in American history—and who gets left out?

    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • Whose Religion?
    2026/08/15

    The fight over church and state is back in the classroom.

    Texas requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools. Similar laws have emerged in Louisiana and Arkansas, while states are also considering Bible-based curriculum and school chaplain programs. Supporters argue these policies recognize America's history and religious heritage. Opponents say they cross a constitutional line by putting government behind a particular faith.

    In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman examine how an argument that began before the Constitution was written continues to shape American politics and public education.

    Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, discusses her organization's legal challenges to Ten Commandments laws and why she believes freedom of religion must also protect Americans from government-imposed religion.

    Then religion journalist Bob Smietana steps back from the courtroom to examine the larger story: the political and religious forces driving these measures, the rise of Christian nationalism, and why teaching about religion can be very different from government promoting it.

    From Baptist preachers jailed in Colonial America to today's battles over scripture on classroom walls, the underlying question remains remarkably familiar:

    When government gets involved in religion, whose religion wins?

    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • Faith Without Force
    2026/08/08
    Who should decide what Americans believe—and what happens when government takes a side? The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion while protecting its free exercise. But the phrase most closely associated with that principle—a "wall of separation between church and state"—does not appear in the Constitution. It comes from an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman trace the origins of religious liberty from the persecution of dissenting Christians in colonial Virginia to today's debates over Christian nationalism, the Ten Commandments in public schools, and whether the United States should be considered a Christian nation. Historian John Ragosta takes us back to colonial Virginia, where the Church of England was the official, tax-supported church. Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other dissenters faced discrimination, violence, and imprisonment. More than half of Virginia's Baptist ministers spent time in jail, often for preaching without government permission. Ragosta explains that these dissenters were not demanding freedom from religion. They were deeply religious people who believed government interference corrupted genuine faith. As the American Revolution approached, their political support became essential—and they demanded an end to church taxes, religious restrictions, and state control over marriage, poor relief, and the placement of orphaned children. Their struggle helped shape the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the First Amendment. Ragosta argues that figures such as Jefferson and James Madison saw religious liberty not only as a political principle, but as a safeguard against the persecution and conflict that followed whenever government claimed the authority to define legitimate belief. Russell Moore, editor of Christianity Today and a former Southern Baptist Convention ethics leader, brings that history into the present. Moore explains why Baptists once stood among the strongest defenders of church-state separation—and why he believes parts of the modern Christian nationalist movement have abandoned that tradition. Moore considers the debate over posting the Ten Commandments in public schools, the difference between teaching students about religion and imposing religious belief, and the difficult question of who decides which version of scripture receives government approval. He argues that faith spreads through individual conviction and persuasion, not through laws, political power, or state decree. From imprisoned Baptist ministers and Jefferson's "wall of separation" to public-school classrooms and the modern Christian nationalist movement, Faith Without Force examines why some of America's most committed believers fought so fiercely to keep government out of religion. The separation of church and state was not necessarily created because the founders believed religion was dangerous. Many believed faith was too important to entrust to political leaders—and that once government gained the power to promote one religion, it also gained the power to suppress another. About the Guests John Ragosta is a historian and author whose work focuses on religious liberty, religious dissent, and the founding era. His research examines the experiences of Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other dissenters who challenged established religion in colonial and revolutionary Virginia. Russell Moore is the editor in chief of Christianity Today and a prominent evangelical author and commentator. He previously led the Southern Baptist Convention's public-policy and religious-liberty organization. About the Hosts Bill Bernardoni is the founder of Bernardoni Media & Marketing and an experienced radio and podcast host, producer, political strategist, and media consultant. His work has included producing national radio programs, developing podcasts and digital media projects, and advising political campaigns and public-policy organizations. Steve Herman is an award-winning journalist and former Voice of America White House bureau chief. During his decades-long career in international journalism, he has reported from more than 70 countries and covered the White House, diplomacy, national security, natural disasters, and conflicts around the world. Join the Conversation Does separating church and state protect Americans from religion—or does it protect religious faith from political power? Share your thoughts with us at RadioFreeAmerica.media. America at 250: Due Diligence is produced with support from the Radio Free America Project and the Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation at the University of Mississippi School of Journalism and New Media.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • The Free Press On Trial
    2026/08/01
    America at 250: Due Diligence goes live from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., for a special hour recorded in the Club's First Amendment Room. As the country marks its 250th year, hosts Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman convene a conversation on the state of a free press, introduced by National Press Club president Mark Schoeff Jr. of CQ Roll Call. The episode opens with a statement from Catherine Herridge, the Emmy Award-winning investigative correspondent who has covered national security and intelligence for ABC, Fox, and CBS. Herridge was held in civil contempt in February 2024 for refusing to disclose the confidential sources behind a 2017 series of national security reports for Fox News. The case arises from a Privacy Act lawsuit brought against four federal agencies by Yanping Chen — not a defamation claim against Herridge's reporting — and key evidence in it remains under seal. On July 2, the Supreme Court denied Herridge's request to halt an $800-a-day contempt fine; she describes making her first payment, the toll on her family, and her legal team's plans to petition the Supreme Court for review later this summer. A panel of journalists and First Amendment lawyers then takes up her case and its wider implications. Toni Locy, who spent 25 years reporting for outlets including the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Associated Press before joining the Washington and Lee University journalism faculty, was herself held in contempt in 2008 for refusing to name sources behind her USA Today reporting on the FBI's flawed investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks — and describes fighting escalating fines without ever naming a source or spending a day in jail. Laura Handman, a Davis Wright Tremaine partner with four decades representing publishers and broadcasters in First Amendment litigation, and Eric Hageman, a Clare Locke LLP partner who represented Dominion Voting Systems in its case against Fox News, bring opposing vantage points — media defense and plaintiff-side defamation — to the conversation. In this episode: The FBI's pre-dawn search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home and seizure of her devices, and the Privacy Protection Act questions it raisedJustice Department subpoenas served on New York Times reporters, including phone records tied to coverage of the president's return flight from QatarProspects for a federal shield law (the PRESS Act) and Rep. Jamie Raskin's efforts to revive itState anti-SLAPP laws and how they discourage lawsuits designed to shake down news organizationsWhether the Supreme Court should reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and the "actual malice" standardThe Dominion v. Fox News settlement and its influence on defamation doctrineLawsuits brought by President Trump against news organizations, including settlements with ABC and CBS, weighed against Teddy Roosevelt's own defamation suit against a newspaperLegal fights over editorial independence at Voice of America and Stars and StripesAudience questions on shield-law prospects, leak investigations, and public trust in the media Guests Catherine Herridge — Emmy Award-winning investigative correspondent; formerly with ABC, Fox, and CBS; reported from Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Israel, Northern Ireland, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia; graduate of Harvard and the Columbia Journalism School, where she founded a national security reporting scholarship; now an independent journalist on X, YouTube, and via her newsletter. Toni Locy — Journalism faculty, Washington and Lee University; 25-year reporting career at the Pittsburgh Press, Philadelphia Daily News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, and the Associated Press; holds a master's in law studies from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Laura Handman — Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine; executive committee, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; four decades of First Amendment litigation for U.S. and foreign publishers and broadcasters. Eric Hageman — Partner, Clare Locke LLP; represents individuals, corporations, nonprofits, and religious institutions in defamation litigation; author of merits and amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. Credits Hosted by Steve Herman and Bill Bernardoni. Executive Producers: Steve Herman and Bill Bernardoni. Audio production by Bill Bernardoni of Bernardoni Media & Marketing. Recorded live at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2026; portions recorded at WUMS Radio, Oxford, Mississippi. Support for the program comes from the Radio Free America™ Project and the Jordan Center for Journalism, Advocacy and Innovation at the University of Mississippi School of Journalism and New Media. More information: newslab.org Comments: RadioFreeAmerica.medi
    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分