As the Biden Administration winds down, pressure is being applied to the President, asking him to order the National Archivist to certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution. Senator Gillebrand has submitted a letter, co-signed by more than 40 Senators, making arguments that harken back to the resolution that accompanied the 1972 amendment, when Congress purported to place a time limit on the amendment’s ratification. Also, some state legislatures withdrew their ratification after initially approving it, and the Senators are crying foul on this. We take a deep dive into the arguments put forth by the amendment’s implementation advocates, the history of other amendments that faced analogous issues, including the great 14th amendment, and Professor Amar’s own scholarship on the matters. Meanwhile, our 4th anniversary is approaching, and we preview the gala event - with Justice Breyer getting behind the microphone with us before you know it! CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

In the wake of President Biden’s pardon of his son, and with the shadow of President-elect Trump’s possible pardons of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and attempted to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s election, are there constitutional issues? The Constitution itself seems direct on the subject, but it turns out there is a lot to discuss. Scope, timing, subject, language, all are questionable. Would either or both of these be impeachable acts? What would happen to the pardon in that case? Are there immunity issues? Where does the pardon power come from, and how has it been used in the past? What is the originalism of pardon law? Lots to talk about, however you feel about the acts themselves politically. And - some big coming attractions! CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Could Republicans in the House conspire with a 2025 President Trump to manufacture a forced Senate recess in an effort to bypass the advise and consent appointments process? The much-anticipated article in The Atlantic has been published, to widespread approval. We proudly present all three co-authors of this article in a wide-ranging, nuanced, fascinating discussion, as Professors Josh Chafetz, Tom Schmidt, and of course Akhil Amar reunite to take us from Restoration England to the chambers of the Supreme Court where Professor Schmidt clerked for Justice Breyer, the author of the principal case on recess appointments, NLRB v. Noel Canning, in 2014. We hear how that case has lessons, and yet is distinguished, from the scenario here, and what might happen if the contemplated maneuvers, deemed grossly unconstitutional by our experts, try it anyway. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.