『Is That Even Constitutional?』のカバーアート

Is That Even Constitutional?

Is That Even Constitutional?

著者: Sadena Thevarajah and Ken Thomas
無料で聴く

このコンテンツについて

It's never been a better time to understand the U.S. Constitution: what it allows, what it prohibits, and what is in the grey area. Join host Sadena Thevarajah and constitutional scholar Ken Thomas in conversation as they scrutinize recent federal administration actions, to help us better see our country's founding document for the living document that it is.

© 2026 Is That Even Constitutional?
政治・政府 政治学
エピソード
  • Project 2026: Stopping Dangerous Sales of Firearms
    2026/01/07

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 47,000 people died of gun-related injuries in the United States in 2023. Despite this litany of violence, gun control in the United States has become far more difficult. In 2008, the Supreme Court drastically reinterpreted the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller. Since then, the Court has enthusiastically expanded this newly discovered doctrine to strike down gun regulations. Congress, however, still has the ability hold gun sellers and manufacturers liable for gun violence.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    19 分
  • Project 2026: Let shareholders limit corporate speech
    2025/12/29

    In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court took individual free speech rights and added an ahistorical addition - giving these rights to corporations. The idea that such a fundamental right should be extended to corporations is nonsensical. Speech is not a property right and there is no reasonable argument that corporate speech is a reflection of the speech of its shareholder. Congress, however, can pass a law prohibiting corporations from funding political speech without the permission of their shareholders.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    21 分
  • Project 2026: The Right to Reproductive Decision-Making
    2025/12/17

    In 1965, the Supreme Court held in Griswold v. Connecticut that the Constitution protected the right of families to use contraception. In 1973, the Court in Roe v. Wade extended this right to decisions to terminate a pregnancy. When Roe was overturned fifty years later in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this not only affected abortion rights but threatened access to contraceptives and fertility treatments. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, explicitly called for the Supreme Court to overturn Griswold and remove the remaining constitutional protections for reproductive decisions. Federal legislation could be passed, however, to protect contraception and restore protections for abortion.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分
まだレビューはありません