Civics In A Year

A young republic rarely gets to choose its identity in peace and quiet. We step into the charged crossroads where Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton wrestled over what “self-government” should actually look like, and how much power the federal center needs to keep a sprawling nation intact. Their clash was not just personal—it was a blueprint fight that forged the first party system and set the tone for the American presidency.

We draw a vivid line from biography to belief: Hamilton, the wartime aide who saw national weakness up close, built a program of public credit, a nati...

A cabinet feud reshaped a nation. We follow Hamilton and Jefferson from principled disagreement to hard-nosed dealmaking, showing how a debate over debt, a national bank, and the reach of implied powers birthed America’s first party system—and moved the capital to the Potomac. Hamilton’s reports on credit, currency, and tariffs aimed to harden the young republic into a credible economic power. Jefferson and Madison fought back, citing constitutional limits and warning against a financial engine that could smother the states. Caught between them, Washington refused party labels while embracing many Hamiltonian policies, a choice that deepened the ri...

Why did a Constitution that never mentions parties give birth to them almost immediately? We trace the story from ratification battles to cabinet showdowns, connecting the dots between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the shockwaves of the French Revolution, and the intellectual scaffolding laid by Montesquieu and Madison. Along the way, we unpack how foreign revolutions reframed domestic loyalties, why the idea of a loyal opposition became a safeguard for liberty, and how institutions invited passionate disagreement without inviting collapse.

We take a careful look at Federalist 10, where Madison avoids the word “party” but squarely confronts faction. His solution—an ext...

Forget today’s party machinery. We go back to the 1790s, when “party” meant faction, suspicion, and heated pamphlets rather than primaries and platforms. With constitutional law scholar Dr. Sean Beienberg, we trace how Federalists and Democratic Republicans sparred over the meaning of the Constitution, the reach of federal power, the role of religion in public life, and which European power the young republic should trust.

We unpack the Federalist vision shaped by Alexander Hamilton: a commercial republic anchored by the Bank of the United States, credible public credit, and strategic support for institutions that stabilized civic life...

What if the most important presidential “speech” was never meant to be spoken? We sit down with Samantha Snyder, research librarian at the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon, to explore why Washington printed his Farewell Address, how he shaped it with counsel from his circle, and what the text reveals about humility, unity, and the burdens of being first.

Samantha pulls back the curtain on the archive: the tactile power of handwriting, the value of drafts and marginal notes, and the very human Washington who joked, worried, and revised. We trace the document’s unusual path t...

Midnight sparks joy, but the deeper story begins when the noise fades. We explore how January 1 became one of America’s earliest federal holidays and why this date has long served as a civic reset—an annual reminder that renewal is something we do together, not alone. From the quiet power of colonial-era visits and reconciliations to the thunderclap of January 1, 1863, we connect personal resolutions to public purpose and trace the living tradition of watch night as a testament to freedom renewed.

I share why Congress chose New Year’s Day in 1870, just five years after the Civil...

A holiday can be more than a date off work; it can be a quiet pact about what a free people hold in common. We dig into Christmas as both a religious feast and a civic tradition, exploring why Congress recognized it in 1870 and how that choice still shapes American public life. With Dr. James Stoner of LSU, we trace the legal and cultural threads that turned a holy day into a shared civic rhythm—touching the Constitution’s “Sundays excepted” clause, early fights over Sunday mail, and the way new technology like the telegraph altered the balance between constant...

A single Supreme Court decision promised that no one would face the power of the state without a lawyer. The more complex question: who pays, who shows up, and how do we make that promise real? We sit down with Professor Sarah Mayeux, a legal historian at Vanderbilt University and author of Free Justice, to trace how Gideon v. Wainwright redefined the right to counsel—and why the work of building public defense still challenges courts and communities today.

We start with the legal arc that led to 1963: early cases guaranteeing counsel in death penalty and federal tr...

Power decides what counts as fair—unless people do. That’s the heartbeat of our conversation with Professor Esther Hong, a scholar of youth and adult carceral systems and a former appellate advocate, as we unpack how the Sixth Amendment still guards legitimacy in a justice system dominated by plea deals. We walk through the core rights—speedy and public trial, impartial jury, notice of charges, assistance of counsel, confrontation, cross-examination, and compulsory process—and trace how they became binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

We explore why Gideon v. Wainwright is more th...

Think you know Citizens United? The headlines got the heat, but the holding was far narrower than the myth. We walk through the real story—what the Court protected, what it left alone, and why the biggest shift in campaign money came from a different case altogether.

We start with the foundation set by Buckley v. Valeo, where the Court split campaign finance into two buckets: contributions to candidates, which can be limited to deter corruption, and independent expenditures, which are protected political speech. From there, we explain how McCain–Feingold tried to fence off the final days...

A chicken counter, a wheat field, and a school-zone arrest shouldn’t define the reach of federal power—but they do. We unpack how a few pivotal cases turned the Commerce Clause from a narrow trade rule into the engine of modern regulation, and where the Court has since tried to tap the brakes without stalling the system.

We start with Schechter Poultry’s unanimous stand against federal micromanagement of a local butcher, then pivot to Wickard v. Filburn, where the justices embraced the aggregation principle: if lots of people act locally, the nationwide market moves, and Congre...

The ground under the Second Amendment keeps shifting—and the story is bigger than a single case. With Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, we walk through the decisions that rewrote the playbook: Heller’s recognition of an individual right, McDonald’s incorporation against the states, Bruin’s insistence on a history-and-tradition test, and Rahimi’s controversial turn toward preventive disarmament for those deemed dangerous. Along the way, we unpack why courts once avoided the Second Amendment, how the Fourteenth Amendment became the vehicle for applying it to state laws, and why lower courts swung...

What happens when a single swing opinion steers higher education for decades—and then the Court changes course? We unpack the legal journey from Bakke’s fragmented ruling to the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, tracing how Justice Powell’s narrow vision of “holistic” diversity took root, evolved in Grutter and Gratz, and ultimately ran into a stricter equal protection and Title VI jurisprudence. Along the way, we break down why quotas were off-limits, how individualized review became the gold standard, and where the latest majority says universities went too far.

With Dr. Beienberg, we revisit the key legal...

A tiny truancy fine opened a constitutional door that still shapes classrooms today. We unpack Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 1972 Supreme Court case where Old Order Amish parents won a free exercise exemption from compulsory high school, and explore how that ruling moved from a narrow carve-out to a live wire in public education. Along the way, we surface the question Justice Douglas couldn’t let go: when parental faith guides a child’s schooling, what room is left for the child’s own future?

We start with the facts on the ground: Amish families who embraced eighth grade...

A 22-word morning prayer, written by New York’s Board of Regents, ignited one of the most significant constitutional rulings of the last century. We sit down with Professor Katskee to unpack Engel v. Vitale and the First Amendment principles it cemented: government cannot compose or sponsor official prayers, and genuine religious liberty flourishes when the state steps back. From the text of the establishment and free exercise clauses to the human realities inside classrooms, we explore what neutrality actually means for students, teachers, and families.

We walk through the case’s path to the Supreme Court, why...

A simple black armband became a turning point for student rights. We sit down with Mary Beth Tinker to revisit the 1965 protest that led to Tinker v. Des Moines and the Supreme Court’s declaration that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. Alongside Mary Beth, Pennsylvania civic educator Shannon Salter brings the story into today’s classrooms, where free speech collides with dress codes, book bans, social media, and the daily realities of learning in community.

Across this conversation, we unpack what the First Amendment means for young people right now: the boun...

We trace the 15-day showdown over the Pentagon Papers and how the Supreme Court drew a bright line against prior restraint. The story moves from Ellsberg’s leak to the Court’s ruling that the press serves the governed, not the governors.

• Vietnam-era context and collapsing public trust
• Ellsberg’s decision to copy and share the study
• The Times publishes and triggers an emergency court fight
• What prior restraint means and why courts disfavor it
• Near v. Minnesota as the legal foundation
• The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision and key opinions
• How the ruling guides modern...

Professor Samantha Barbas traces how New York Times v. Sullivan reshaped libel law, empowered investigative reporting, and protected the civil rights movement, then tests the standard against today’s social media landscape. She unpacks “actual malice,” reputation, and current calls to revisit the ruling.

What you will learn in this episode:

• what libel is and why it matters
• the meaning of actual malice as reckless disregard
• civil rights origins of the Sullivan decision
• how the ruling liberated investigative journalism
• modern critiques from reputation to originalism
• social media’s global scale of harm...

Imagine sharing a district with nine times as many people as the voters next door and getting the same single representative. That stark imbalance was common before Baker v. Carr, and it’s the starting point for our deep dive into how the Supreme Court reshaped representation, why one person, one vote became the baseline, and where the law is drifting now.

We sit down with Professor Stephen Wermiel to unpack the two-step process that changed modern apportionment. First came Baker v. Carr in 1962, which opened the courthouse doors by declaring that extreme population disparities in legislative di...

A nine-page Supreme Court opinion changed the course of American education—and it wasn’t an accident. We walk through the legal strategy that chipped away at Plessy, the political maneuvering that elevated Earl Warren, and the consolidated cases that gave Brown its force. From the NAACP’s focus on the false promise of “equal” to South Carolina’s attempt to preserve segregation by upgrading Black schools, the road to 1954 was crowded with tactics, pressure, and surprising alliances.

Once Warren took the helm, the Court aimed for clarity over casebook citations. Brown I is short by design, rejecting th...

Free speech law didn’t spring fully formed; it was hammered out case by case, crisis by crisis. We unpack how Schenck v. United States, a 1919 wartime case that actually upheld a conviction, planted the “clear and present danger” idea and nudged the Court away from the sweeping “bad tendency” rule. From there, we follow the thread through Holmes and Brandeis, whose dissents helped build a sturdier shield for political dissent, all the way to Brandenburg v. Ohio and its demanding standard: only speech intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action can be punished.

Along the way, we ma...

A Supreme Court tried to settle the slavery question and instead set the country ablaze. We unpack Dred Scott v. Sandford with Dr. Beinberg, tracing how a case about one man’s claim to freedom morphed into a sweeping judgment that denied Black citizenship, stripped Congress of authority over the territories, and elevated slaveholding to a protected property right. Rather than take a narrow path, the Court chose a maximal ruling that collided with text, history, and public sentiment—and pushed a polarized nation closer to war.

We walk through the three pillars of the decision and why...

A steamboat monopoly, a federal license, and a constitutional power that still shapes our economy—this is the story of Gibbons v. Ogden told through clear facts and sharp reasoning. We dig into how a seemingly straightforward dispute over navigation between New York and New Jersey became a landmark on the meaning of the Commerce Clause and the reach of federal supremacy.

We walk through the clash of dueling licenses and explain why navigation counts as commerce when routes cross state lines. From there, we unpack Chief Justice Marshall’s move away from “strict construction,” his broader definiti...

A state tax, a national bank, and a constitutional reckoning—this is the moment McCulloch v. Maryland turned a revenue measure into a blueprint for federal power. We bring Dr. Beienberg back to trace the story from the first bank fight of the 1790s through the War of 1812 and into Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion, showing how a practical question about taxing a federal institution became a lasting lesson on supremacy and implied powers.

We dig into the core debate that split Jefferson and Hamilton: What does “necessary and proper” really mean? Jefferson wanted “necessary” to be indispens...

A delivered commission goes missing, a new Chief Justice takes the bench, and a dry jurisdictional dispute turns into a lodestar for American constitutional law. We dive into Marbury v. Madison to unpack what John Marshall actually did: not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but clarify why a written Constitution demands an independent check when statutes collide with higher law.

We walk through the case’s colorful backstory to set the stage, then focus on the heart of the opinion—constitutional supremacy and the judiciary’s limited but essential role. Marshall’s choice is stark: either t...

A holiday felt so fixed that few imagined it could move—until the president did exactly that. We dive into the surprising civic journey of Thanksgiving, from Sarah Josepha Hale’s decades-long campaign that convinced Abraham Lincoln to set a national day, to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1939 decision to shift the date for economic recovery—and the two-year “Franksgiving” saga that followed. What started as editorials and proclamations became a national debate over presidential power, state autonomy, business pressure, and the role of Congress in settling cultural controversy.

We unpack why Lincoln’s wartime proclamation landed when it did, how Ha...

Gratitude didn’t just arrive with pumpkin pie; it was engineered through careful words and bold timing. We sit down with Dr. Paris Careese to explore how presidential proclamations by George Washington in 1789 and Abraham Lincoln in 1863 shaped Thanksgiving into a unifying civic ritual—and why those choices still influence how we gather, pray, and reflect today. From early congressional requests to wartime appeals for humility, the story of Thanksgiving doubles as a masterclass in statesmanship.

We start with Washington’s first proclamation, issued shortly after Congress drafted the religion clauses of the First Amendment. His language—monothei...

The loudest fights about the Supreme Court are usually about outcomes. We pull back the curtain on the methods that shape those outcomes—text, history, precedent, and values—and explain how different approaches to constitutional interpretation drive very different answers to the same question.

We start with textualism as the shared baseline: everyone claims fidelity to the words. From there, we dive into originalism’s focus on public meaning at the time of adoption, walking through the evidence historians and lawyers actually use—ratification debates, period dictionaries, and legal practice. That’s where examples like “domestic violence” and the word a...

A century of episodes calls for a wider lens, and we open it fully: the founding wasn’t just hammered out in halls and pamphlets by famous men—it was argued, nurtured, and lived by women whose ideas changed the course of American liberty. We pull threads from homes and letters into the political tapestry, showing how civic virtue took shape through family, education, economic agency, and public authorship.

We explore Abigail Adams’s push for legal and economic recognition within marriage and household management, Mercy Otis Warren’s “deep cut” anti-federalist critique that helped spur the Bill of Righ...

What if the founding of the United States could be heard not only in speeches and volleys but in quilts mended by firelight, farm ledgers balanced in winter, and poems that dared to test the nation’s conscience? We open the door to the women who made those sounds and shaped the structure beneath the stories most of us learned in school.

First, we trace Martha Washington’s steady presence at icy encampments, where morale could make or break a campaign. Then we turn to Abigail Adams, whose letters sharpened political thought while her work on the fami...

Ever wondered how a member of Congress can shape national policy without casting a floor vote? We sit down with Representative Kimberlyn King Hines, the delegate from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, to explore the real power centers in Washington: committees, markups, and the relationships that decide which ideas move and which ones stall. From drafting legislation to negotiating amendments, she shows how influence is built long before a bill reaches the House floor—and why that matters for communities far from the mainland.

We also pull back the curtain on the Marianas themselves—a remo...

We trace Phillis Wheatley’s journey from captivity to literary force, exploring how her poems speak to faith, freedom, and belonging during the American founding. We highlight her craft, the battle to be believed, and why her voice reframes the Revolution.

• capture in Africa and arrival in Boston 
• education in the Wheatley home and early brilliance 
• eulogy poems, public readings, and patronage 
• the publication controversy and authorship “trial” 
• patriotism and British identity in tension 
• faith shaping moral claims about slavery 
• “On Being Brought” and its paradoxes 
• letter to Samson Occom and “modern Egyptians” 
• why...

A forgotten voice sharpened the edge of American liberty—she did it with clarity, courage, and a printing press that didn’t always want her words. We sit down with Dr. Kirstin Burkhaugto explore the life and legacy of Judith Sargent Murray, the self-taught Boston writer whose 1790 essay On the Equality of the Sexes argued that women possess the same moral and intellectual capacities as men. Years before Mary Wollstonecraft’s landmark work, Murray was already building a distinctly American case for women’s political equality—rooted in empirical observation, everyday experience, and a Universalist theology that saw all souls as o...

We trace the life and ideas of Mercy Otis Warren, the writer who helped secure a culture of liberty—and a Bill of Rights—without a seat at the Convention. From a rare classical education to salons with the Sons of Liberty, her pen shaped policy and public virtue.

• Mercy Otis Warren’s early education and family background
• Hosting and influencing the Sons of Liberty network
• Friendship with John Adams and first published poem
• Plays, poems, essays, and a pioneering Revolution history
• Anti‑Federalist critique and Observations on the New Constitution
• Locke’s influence, individua...

We explore how Martha Washington and Deborah Sampson advanced the Revolution through very different forms of leadership. One shaped morale and public life; the other broke barriers to fight and spy under a borrowed name.

• Pairing Martha Washington and Deborah Sampson through military connection
• Deborah Sampson’s enlistment as Robert Shirtliff and covert missions
• Self-treatment of wounds to protect her identity
• Discovery, honorable discharge, and veteran legacy
• Martha Washington’s destroyed correspondence and historical traces
• Presence at Valley Forge and role in sustaining morale
• Defining the social tone for the early capital and first...

Power changes when it meets a clear-eyed partner. That’s the thread that runs through our conversation with Dr. Kirsten Birkhaug as we trace the political and personal partnership of John and Abigail Adams—two sharp minds who treated marriage like a working lab for ideas that would shape the early republic. We open with why their story is the right entry point for Women of the Founding, then follow the through line from courtship candor to presidential counsel, guided by the letters that map their lifelong exchange.

John’s reputation as a formidable thinker grows more intere...

Start with a single word—Congress—and watch the ground shift beneath your feet. We pull back the curtain on how rights that began as limits on the federal government became limits on states, tracing the winding path from Reconstruction’s ambitions to today’s near-universal incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

With constitutional law scholar Dr. Beienberg, we revisit Madison’s failed bid to bind states, the post–Civil War demand for a national floor of fundamental rights, and the strange turn that sidelined the Privileges or Immunities Clause. From Cruikshank’s detour to the rise of substantive...

Power flows from a simple premise: if the Constitution doesn’t grant it to Congress and it isn’t taken from the states, it stays with the states or the people. We dig into that promise, unpacking the Tenth Amendment as more than a slogan and showing how it shapes real law, real policy, and real tradeoffs between national goals and local control.

We start with why ratifying conventions demanded the Tenth and how its logic is already embedded in Article I and the Necessary and Proper Clause. From there, we follow the thread through the Reconstruction Amen...

Power doesn’t just shift in Washington; it moves along a carefully drawn map between the federal government and the states. We dive into that map by tracing the Tenth Amendment through two centuries of clashes, from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to modern fights over immigration, marijuana, sports betting, and healthcare funding. With Dr. Beienberg, we unpack why nullification burned out, how anti-commandeering took hold, and what the courts mean by a real choice versus a gun to the head.

We start where the early republic set the tone: Jefferson’s flirtation with nullification and Madison’s push...

A single sentence in the Bill of Rights has fueled decades of confusion, debate, and hot takes—so we went back to the source to make sense of it. We trace the Ninth Amendment from the founding-era fight over a federal Bill of Rights to James Madison’s original, clearer draft, and show how its real job is to keep the federal government within its enumerated lane rather than serve as a grab bag of unlisted rights. Along the way, we unpack why the Amendment made perfect sense to early readers steeped in federalism, and why later courts stumbled once...

Fairness is one of the first ideas we learn as kids, and it never stops shaping how we see justice. We sit down with Dr. Kerry Sautner, president and CEO of Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site, to unpack the Eighth Amendment’s compact promise: no excessive bail or fines, and no cruel and unusual punishment. From there, the conversation opens into the human questions that text demands we face—what counts as cruel, who decides, and how do standards change as society and science evolve.

We trace the history behind the Amendment’s key words and why “unusual”...

The quiet that fell on November 11, 1918 did more than end a war—it sparked a living promise we renew every time we show up for one another. We start with the origin of Armistice Day and trace how America reshaped it into Veterans Day, a commitment that honors every veteran’s service while challenging the rest of us to carry freedom forward through daily civic action.

I sit down with Representative Stacy Travers, a U.S. Army veteran and Arizona lawmaker, to unpack how the mission-first mindset translates from the field to the floor. Stacy shares how disc...

Want to know why a room full of ordinary people may be the strongest shield for your freedom? We sit down with Dr. James Stoner to unpack how the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments built a citizen‑powered brake on state power—and why those guardrails still shape trials, property, and civil justice today.

We start with the founding clash over juries, where Anti‑Federalists demanded more than Article III’s broad promise. You’ll hear how vicinage, grand juries, and the fear of “the process as punishment” led to layered protections that force prosecutors to justify charges before...

We trace the Fourth Amendment from colonial protests against general warrants to modern rules for warrants, cars, phones, and digital surveillance. We explain probable cause, reasonableness, and how courts adapt old principles to new technology without watering them down.

• roots in English common law and colonial resistance to general warrants
• James Otis’s protest and John Adams’s influence on state constitutions
• probable cause, sworn affidavits, and particularity in warrants
• the automobile exception and Carroll’s articulation requirement
• defining reasonableness versus arbitrary searches
• Kyllo and technology that reveals home details
• Katz’s reasonable expectati...

What if the fiercest argument about the Second Amendment is solved by going back to grammar, history, and first principles? We bring on Professor Nelson Lund—constitutional scholar and author of Rousseau’s Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy—to cut through the noise with a clear reading of the text, a tour of English militia traditions, and a deep dive into the natural rights foundation that powered the founding era.

We start where the framers started: with England’s uneasy balance between standing armies and a citizen militia, and with Americans’ fear that concentrated military power would swallow liberty. F...

Ever wonder why the law protects some of the most offensive speech you’ve ever heard? We sit down with Professor Eugene Volokh to map the real boundaries of the First Amendment—where protection is strongest, where it stops, and why those edges exist at all. No jargon, no euphemisms, just a clear guide to what the Constitution allows the government to punish and what it must tolerate.

We start by untangling the core exceptions: defamation, true threats, and incitement of imminent lawless action. From there, we tackle a widespread misconception: there is no “hate speech” exception in U.S...

Do you want to know what “freedom of the press” protects when you hit publish, post a video, or record a public official? We sit down with Professor Eugene Volokh, a leading First Amendment scholar, to draw a clear map through press rights, speech doctrine, and the practical rules that shape what you can say—and how you can gather the facts to say it.

We start with a plain-English definition: press freedom, not just credentialed journalists, belongs to everyone. That means the right to use mass communication tools—from the printing press to social platforms—without prior lice...

What if the most underrated line of the First Amendment is the one that asks for a reply? We sit down with Dr. Daniel Carpenter of Harvard to explore the right to petition—what it is, where it came from, and why it still shapes how power listens. From a Roman subject pressing Emperor Hadrian for attention to the barons who forced Magna Carta, petitioning has long been the channel that turns private grievance into public business.

We walk through the pivotal moments that cemented this right: the English Bill of Rights pushing back on Parliament’s rest...

We push past rote coverage to show how inquiry turns students into investigators who ask better questions, weigh evidence, and communicate claims. We link inquiry to the EAD roadmap, Arizona standards, and practical frameworks teachers can use right away.

• defining inquiry as student-driven questioning and evidence use
• what inquiry looks like versus what it is not
• teacher as facilitator and curator of sources
• unsettled questions that anchor investigations
• collaboration, civil discourse and productive struggle
• aligning inquiry with the EAD roadmap and state standards
• teaching students to ask better questions with Costa’s levels
• p...

Think you know the Constitution’s greatest hits? We pull back the curtain with Andrew Porwancher, a constitutional historian and Hamilton biographer, to test common “truths” against the record the founders left behind. We start with power: why Madison and Hamilton expected Congress to predominate, why the judiciary was “the weakest,” and how modern presidents and courts grew in strength, often with Congress’s blessing. Then we follow a surprising breadcrumb trail to the First Amendment, where an accident of ratification made those liberties “first,” and Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” grew from a thank-you letter inspired by a 1,200-pound “mammoth...

A short pause can sharpen the conversation, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re stepping back for a moment to gear up for a stronger return on November 3—bringing in sharp scholars, richer context, and practical insights on the ideas and institutions that shape American democracy.

While we prep, we’re opening our library to you. We’ve curated standout episodes from the Arizona Civics podcast, produced by the Center for American Civics, that pair perfectly with our mission: making the complex simple and the distant local. These conversations dig into how state constitutions structure po...

We map the freedom of speech by categories, separating protected ideas from unprotected harms like libel, obscenity, true threats, and incitement, and explain why political speech sits at the core. We also clear up the biggest myth: there is no “hate speech” exception in American law.

• meaning of “the” freedom of speech and core protection for political speech
• libel and slander as tort-like harms outside First Amendment protection
• evolution of incitement doctrine culminating in Brandenburg
• line between ideas and conduct, including true threats
• symbolic speech, flag burning, and viewpoint discrimination
• why hate speech is not a lega...

We explore the Free Exercise Clause, trace the path from Reynolds to Smith, and examine how RFRA, vouchers, and the “tire case” shape modern religious liberty. We connect free exercise to establishment, show where they clash, and ask where the Court might go next.

• Free exercise as anti-persecution baseline 
• Reynolds and limits on religiously motivated conduct 
• Smith’s rule on neutral, generally applicable laws 
• RFRA’s compelling-interest test in federal law 
• Hobby Lobby as statutory interpretation, not a grand theory 
• Equal access to public benefits for religious entities 
• Ministerial training as an establishment red line  Duration: 00:18:01

Forget the sound bite about a “wall of separation.” We dig into what the Establishment Clause actually says, why the founders cared, and how the Supreme Court’s view has evolved from strict separation to a history-and-tradition lens that prizes neutrality without scrubbing religion from public life. With Dr. Sean Beienberg, we unpack the founding-era landscape where some states still had established churches, walk through Jefferson’s letter and Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, and contrast competing models: strict separation, non-preferentialism, and minimalist federalism. You’ll hear how those frameworks shape real-world fights over school prayer, vouchers, and religious symbols on p...

What happens when a republic that relies on moral character also forbids any national church? We dig into the founding design for religious liberty, starting with the First Amendment’s twin protections—no establishment and free exercise—and the earlier Article VI commitments to oaths or affirmations and a flat ban on religious tests. By reading the text aloud and then setting it against the historical record, we show how the framers treated faith as a civic good while refusing to let the federal government command belief.

We walk through the Declaration’s appeals to a higher source o...

Start with a myth-buster: the First Amendment wasn’t originally first. We open the door to the real story behind the Bill of Rights—how a wary public demanded assurances, how Madison turned state models into national guarantees, and why the most overlooked provisions may be the ones that guard your freedom most effectively. Together we map the logic that shaped the first ten amendments: eight that name individual rights and two that anchor the Constitution’s core design—limited, enumerated federal powers.

We walk through the bargain that secured ratification, the early view that the Bill of Right...

We explore how three clauses—and what’s left unsaid—shaped slavery’s legal status at the founding while pointing toward its moral illegitimacy. Dr. Michael Zuckert traces the tension between federal structure, state authority, and the Declaration’s promise of equality, and follows that thread to Reconstruction.

• abolitionist charge of a pro‑slavery Constitution vs Lincoln’s limited‑accommodation view
• three clauses: three‑fifths, slave trade to 1808, fugitive return
• deliberate omission of the words slave and slavery
• slavery as a state institution, not a federal one
• representation mechanics and political power of slaveholders
• commerce...

The Constitution didn’t materialize from harmony; it was hammered out line by line by people who disagreed on almost everything except one urgent fact: the Articles weren’t working. We sit down with Julie Silverbrook, Vice President of Civic Education at the National Constitution Center, to unpack how compromise created a nation—its brilliance, its fractures, and its moral costs.

We start in 1787, where large and small states, commercial and agricultural interests, and slaveholding and non‑slaveholding delegates collided. Julie explains the Great (Connecticut) Compromise that split representation between the House and Senate, then confronts the slavery‑...

What if the Constitution wasn’t meant to be a relic, but a living commitment we change only when we truly mean it? We dig into Article V with Dr. Sean Beienburg to unpack how the Constitution can be amended, why the framers chose supermajorities over unanimity, and how states can pressure Congress when Washington stalls. Along the way, we separate constitutional law from the Constitution itself, clarifying what courts can interpret—and what only the people can change.

We trace the two proposal routes—through Congress or a state-called convention—showing how the dormant convention option has shap...

Think you already know how the Electoral College works? We go past the headlines to unpack why the system blends popular voice with state power, how states gained wide discretion over electors, and why most adopted winner-take-all rules. With Dr. Sean Beienberg, we trace the original “filtering” idea, show how party pledges transformed elector behavior, and examine the math that makes electoral-popular vote splits more likely when the House size is capped.

We also stress-test the biggest critiques. Are today’s big–small state gaps unprecedented? The historical record says otherwise, with past ratios far exceeding modern spreads...

What exactly does the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause allow Congress to do? Dr. Beienburg cuts through centuries of debate to reveal the true nature of this misunderstood provision.

The podcast begins by addressing a common misconception—the name "Elastic Clause" originated not from the Constitution's defenders but from its critics seeking to portray it as dangerously expansive. Dr. Beinberg walks us through Article 1, Section 8's actual language, explaining that this provision codifies a fundamental legal principle: when authority is granted, the means to execute that authority come with it.

We dive deep into the hi...

A lot of people say the Constitution is outdated; fewer can explain how its design actually came to be. We walk through the ideas that turned Enlightenment philosophy into a durable framework: why the founders insisted on a written constitution, how separation of powers disciplines ambition, and what makes federalism a bold way to scale a republic across a continent without flattening local life. Along the way, we unpack the surprising truth that America embraced a moderate Enlightenment—open to classical learning and religious influence—rather than a radical break with the past.

With Dr. Carrese as our...

The most famous three words in American politics aren’t the whole story. We take “We the People” and follow it through the full Preamble to see how six clear aims—union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty—turn revolutionary ideals into a working constitutional order. Along the way, we revisit the turmoil of the Articles of Confederation, the shock of Shays’ Rebellion, and the founders’ wager that a real federal government could do what a loose league never could: secure rights by giving consent a capable home.

With Dr. Paul Carrese, we co...

Federalism represents the fundamental division of power between the federal government and states, serving as a core animating feature of American government since the Revolution. Dr. Sean Beienburg explores how this constitutional principle works, its history, and why it remains crucial in today's polarized political environment.

• Federalism means power is divided, with most authority remaining with states rather than the central government
• The Constitution grants "few and defined" powers to the federal government while states retain "numerous and indefinite" powers
• The 10th Amendment reinforces that powers not given to the federal government remain with the states...

The architecture of American democracy didn't happen by accident. In this illuminating episode of Civics in a Year, Dr. Sean Beienberg reveals how the Constitution's system of checks and balances creates a government resistant to tyranny yet capable of action.

Starting with the fundamental concept of separation of powers—where different branches handle lawmaking, execution, and adjudication—Dr. Beienberg explains how the founders went further by giving each branch "defensive interventions" into the others' domains. The presidential veto allows blocking legislation without creating it. Congressional impeachment provides recourse against corrupt officials. Judicial review enables courts to invalidate unco...

Political violence doesn’t appear out of nowhere; it grows in the shadows of dehumanizing talk, outrage incentives, and the belief that ordinary politics no longer works. We take that trend head‑on with Jeff Davis, program director for civic education at the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, to unpack why language matters, how persuasion gets crowded out, and what we can practically do to rebuild trust in elections and constitutional processes.

We start by mapping the pattern behind recent attacks and threats, then trace the subtle shift from criticizing ideas to labeling people as e...

Power division is at the heart of America's constitutional system, yet few truly understand its ingenious architecture. Dr. Sean Beienberg breaks down this complex framework, revealing how the founders created a government designed not for gridlock but for balance—preventing tyranny while enabling effective governance.

Drawing from James Madison's Federalist 51, Dr. Beienberg illuminates the "double security" built into our constitutional structure. The Constitution first divides authority vertically between federal and state governments, allocating "police powers" (responsibility for health, welfare, safety, and morals) primarily to states while reserving foreign policy and interstate commerce for federal jurisdiction. Within each le...

How do you build a nation from scratch? The founders didn't work in a vacuum—they had living laboratories in the form of state constitutions. These documents, written during the revolutionary fervor after 1776, provided crucial lessons about what worked—and what spectacularly failed—in constitutional design.

Dr. Beienberg walks us through the fascinating contrast between two state constitutions that shaped America's founding document. The Pennsylvania Constitution 1776, drafted in revolutionary excitement, created an overly responsive system with minimal checks on popular will. Madison and other founders viewed it as a cautionary tale of democratic excess, famously referring to it as...

The delicate balance between federal power and state sovereignty has defined American governance since its founding. Dr. Beienberg returns to explore the crucial evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, revealing subtleties often overlooked in standard historical narratives.

Rather than a simple shift from "weak" to "strong" government, Dr. Beinberg articulates how the Constitution created a "stronger government" that preserved federalism while addressing specific deficiencies. The fundamental transformation was from a league (similar to NATO) to a government capable of enforcing its laws directly upon citizens. This shift eliminated the accountability problems where federal officials...

The Articles of Confederation are often dismissed as America's failed first attempt at self-government, but there's a richer story hiding beneath this simplified narrative. Dr. Sean Beienberg takes us on a fascinating journey through America's original governing document, revealing its strengths and weaknesses with remarkable clarity.

What exactly were the Articles of Confederation? Far from the strong national government we know today, they created what Dr. Beinberg describes as a "league of friendship" – more akin to NATO than a unified nation. Each state maintained its sovereignty while participating in a collective body primarily focused on defense and fo...

Remember when you were a kid and tried to build something complicated for the first time? It rarely worked perfectly on the first attempt. The United States had a similar experience with its first government system.

The Articles of Confederation represented America's first attempt at self-government after winning independence from Britain. While this early rulebook successfully brought the thirteen colonies together during the Revolutionary War and established Congress as a meeting place for state representatives, it quickly revealed critical flaws. The national government couldn't collect taxes, enforce laws, or effectively resolve disputes between states. Essentially, America operated...

Why do Supreme Court justices turn to 235-year-old political essays when deciding modern cases? This riveting exploration with Dr. Sean Beienberg reveals how the Federalist Papers continue to shape constitutional interpretation centuries after their publication.

The Federalist Papers serve a dual purpose in today's legal landscape. First, they explain the Constitution's institutional design, where the document remains sparse. Dr. Beienberg notes, "They do a terrific job articulating and explaining the logic, institutional design, and purposes of those institutional arrangements." Even Alexis de Tocqueville recognized their explanatory power, often deferring to them in his analysis of American democracy.<...

Few Americans have transformed our nation's trajectory quite like Sandra Day O'Connor. Born on an Arizona ranch where she learned resilience and grit, her journey to becoming the first woman on the Supreme Court reveals both personal determination and the evolving story of American democracy itself.

Sandra Day grew up on the 200,000-acre Lazy Bee Ranch, developing problem-solving skills and persistence that would define her remarkable career. Despite graduating third in her class from Stanford Law School, every law firm refused to hire her while readily employing her husband. Undeterred, she volunteered without pay at a city...

We explore the critical debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists that shaped America's founding and governmental structure in the late 1780s after the Revolutionary War. Their competing visions for the new nation's power structure ultimately resulted in both a strong constitutional framework and explicit protections for individual rights.

• Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay advocated for a strong central government to maintain national unity and security
• Anti-Federalists including Patrick Henry and George Mason worried about excessive federal power and demanded stronger protections for individual rights
• A school carnival analogy helps explain the debate: some w...

Dr. Paul Carrese returns to Civics in a Year for a profound conversation about what modern Americans can learn from the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification. This eye-opening discussion reveals how America's core identity has always been defined not by ethnic or religious homogeneity, but by a commitment to principled debate among free people who disagree yet remain united in a shared national project.

The great paradox of American democracy, as Dr. Carrese explains, is that our unity emerges precisely from our diversity of thought. The Constitution itself was born from intense debate...

The Federalist Papers stand as America's original political science—a blueprint for constitutional government that remains surprisingly relevant 240 years after its creation. In this enlightening conversation with Dr. Paul Carrese, we explore why these historical documents continue to shape our understanding of governance despite dramatic changes in American society.

What makes the Federalist Papers so enduring? As Dr. Carrese explains, the fundamental questions they address - federalism, separation of powers, the character needed for self-governance - remain at the heart of our political discourse. When courts interpret the Constitution, when states assert their rights against federal power, wh...

Dr. Sean Beienberg examines the historical debate between Alexander Hamilton and Brutus regarding judicial power and independence in the American constitutional system. Hamilton's Federalist 78 defends judicial review as necessary for enforcing constitutional limits on government, while Brutus feared creating an unaccountable judicial oligarchy.

• Both Hamilton and Brutus agreed judicial review existed in the Constitution but disagreed on whether it was beneficial
• Brutus warned judges would become "independent of heaven itself" with no checks on their power
• Hamilton argued the judiciary would be "the least dangerous branch" lacking enforcement mechanisms
• The case for judicial independence collapse...

We explore Federalist Papers 47 and 48 with Dr. Sean Beinberg, examining Madison's sophisticated understanding of separation of powers and the subtle distinction between separated powers and checks and balances.

• Dr. Beienberg identifies these papers as among the most important Federalist writings
• Madison responds to critics who claimed the Constitution had poor separation of powers
• Tyranny defined as concentration of powers, regardless of whether in one, few, or many hands
• Madison argues tyranny can exist even in a popularly elected democracy if powers aren't separated
• Separation requires giving each branch control over others, not complete division Duration: 00:14:21

We explore why Constitution Day matters by comparing the U.S. Constitution to the rulebook of a sports team, showing how both prevent chaos and establish fair play. On September 17, 1787, the founders created not just a document but a revolutionary system where power comes from the people rather than kings or rulers.

• The Constitution serves as America's rulebook, similar to how sports teams need rules to function
• Signed on September 17, 1787, the Constitution established how our new country would operate
• Revolutionary concept that power comes from "We the People" instead of kings
• The U.S. Constitu...

We explore the essential qualities of a good president according to America's founding fathers and how these same virtues helped Abraham Lincoln lead during the Civil War. These timeless leadership traits—honesty, wisdom, courage, and respect for the people—remain relevant for aspiring leaders of all ages today.

• Founders worried about giving one person too much power while still needing a strong leader
• Washington demonstrated honesty by refusing to become king despite popular support
• Hamilton emphasized the importance of wisdom and knowledge of laws, history, and military affairs
• Madison believed presidential power must come from the peo...

Dr. Sean Beienberg returns to examine the Electoral College through the lens of Federalist Paper 68, explaining the original intentions behind this complex system and how it rapidly evolved from its designed purpose. We explore how Hamilton's vision of a filtering mechanism for selecting "prudent statesmen" quickly transformed with the rise of political parties and changing electoral practices.

• The Electoral College has two key features: the allocation of electors (balancing federal and national interests) and the filtering mechanism for selecting presidents
• Electoral allocation reflects the mixed federal system—combining House (population-based) and Senate (state-based) representation
• Hamilton designed...

Dr. Beienberg explains Alexander Hamilton's arguments in Federalist No. 70 for establishing a single executive rather than a council or committee to lead the executive branch. Hamilton's case rests on the fundamental differences between legislative and executive power, with the former benefiting from diverse voices and the latter requiring efficiency and clear accountability.

• Executive power demands unity for efficiency and clear accountability
• Multiple executives create internal division and blame-shifting
• The Roman consul system showed the disadvantages of divided executive authority
• The British monarchy used councils to deflect blame from the king
• The American presidency is designe...

Dr. Beienberg returns to explore Federalist No. 70, examining Hamilton's nuanced arguments for a strong executive branch within a balanced constitutional system. The discussion clarifies common misconceptions about the "unitary executive" theory and illustrates why the founders designed the presidency for efficient implementation rather than policy creation.

• Hamilton's core argument in Federalist 70-72 emphasizes the need for a "strong and vigorous executive" but with specific limitations
• The founders designed deliberative legislatures to make policy and energetic executives to implement it
• Executive power primarily concerns executing laws, not creating domestic policy
• The "unitary executive" concept ensures accounta...

Madison's Federalist 51 establishes separation of powers as a safeguard against tyranny while reintroducing the extended republic concept to prevent majority oppression of minorities. The paper forms part of a larger constitutional framework designed to balance power, promote the rule of law, and create effective government through the distribution of energy, stability, and republican liberty among different branches.

• Separation of powers prevents tyranny by avoiding concentration of power in one branch
• Extended republic concept protects minorities from majority oppression
• No branch should judge its own cause, ensuring impartial rule of law
• Three branches contribute different qualitie...

Dr. Alan Gibson continues his analysis of the Federalist Papers with a deep dive into James Madison's arguments for separation of powers in Federalist 51. Madison outlines his revolutionary approach to maintaining constitutional balance by harnessing human nature and self-interest rather than relying on parchment barriers or periodic constitutional revisions.

• Madison rejected simply writing down powers on parchment as insufficient to prevent encroachment
• Jefferson's proposal for constitutional conventions was dismissed as harmful to constitutional legitimacy
• The famous "ambition must be made to counter ambition" solution connects personal interest with constitutional duty
• Madison's system requires giving each bra...

Dr. Alan Gibson returns to examine Federalist 51, Madison's definitive document on separation of powers and checks and balances within the American governmental system. Madison's argument across Federalist Papers 47-51 culminates in a sophisticated explanation of how to preserve liberty through proper distribution of governmental authority.

• Separation of powers is described by Madison as "a sacred maxim of free government"
• American system differs from parliamentary systems where executive emerges from legislature
• Madison argues branches should remain distinct but with "partial agency" in each other
• Separation involves dividing government functions according to their nature
• Common misconcept...

Dr. Beienberg explores Federalist 39, Madison's comprehensive explanation of how the Constitution blends federal and national elements to create an effective yet balanced government structure.

• Federalist 39 first defends the Constitution as establishing a republican government where all offices are filled directly or indirectly by the people
• Madison distinguishes between federal systems (power flows up from states) and national systems (power flows down from central authority)
• The Constitution creates a hybrid system taking the best elements from both approaches
• The scope of federal powers is limited (federal principle) while the execution of those powers is direct (national...

Dr. Alan Gibson delves into James Madison's groundbreaking argument in Federalist 10 that challenges traditional thinking about republics and factions. Madison innovatively argues that a large, diverse republic better protects against majority tyranny than a small, homogeneous one by using the multiplicity of interests as a stabilizing force.

• Madison boldly challenges the small republic thesis prevalent in classical republican theory
• Factions form around opinions, passions, and interests, with economic interests being the most durable source
• Two approaches exist for handling factions: removing causes (by destroying liberty or homogenizing society) or controlling effects
• Majority factions pose the grea...

Dr. Alan Gibson explores Madison's revolutionary idea in Federalist 10 that republican government works better over large territories with diverse populations rather than small ones. This concept directly challenged centuries of traditional republican theory that insisted republics must remain small to function properly.

• Madison argued large republics naturally check faction formation, particularly majority factions that threaten minority rights
• Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists considered themselves republicans but disagreed fundamentally on how to structure the government
• Traditional republican theory identified three pure forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) that each faced distinct corruption problems
• Montesquieu and others believed...

Dr. Carrese returns to explore the Anti-Federalists, an overlooked yet crucial group of America's founders whose opposition to the Constitution led directly to the Bill of Rights and continues to shape constitutional debates today.

• Anti-Federalists opposed the 1787 Constitution because they feared the federal government would become too powerful and remote from the people
• They criticized the presidency as concentrating too much power in one person elected for a lengthy four-year term
• The Senate, the independent judiciary, and the small House of Representatives were viewed as threats to democratic representation
• Key Anti-Federalist writers included Federal Farmer...

Civic holidays are days set aside to commemorate important events or values in our nation's history. They serve as reminders of our shared past and principles rather than just opportunities for celebration. Labor Day, celebrated on the first Monday in September, originated in the late 1800s when workers organized into unions to demand better working conditions, fair wages, and reasonable hours.

• Civic holidays include Independence Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and Constitution Day
• Labor Day became a national holiday in 1894 after workers organized for better conditions
• The labor movement fought for the eight-hour workday with t...

The Federalist Papers served as crucial persuasive documents during the Constitution's ratification debates, particularly for securing New York's pivotal approval, without which many feared the entire system would collapse. Dr. Beienberg explains how these essays engaged with sophisticated criticisms from writers like Brutus in respectful intellectual debate rather than dismissive rhetoric.

• Each state needed to ratify the Constitution for it to take effect independently
• Rhode Island and North Carolina briefly existed as independent countries while holding out
• New York's ratification was considered essential despite its being identified as a "small state"
• Brutus, a legally trained...

The Federalist Papers emerged as a strategic response to critics of the newly drafted Constitution. Alexander Hamilton organized James Madison and John Jay to write under the pseudonym "Publius" to advocate for ratification.

• Hamilton, Madison, and Jay published 85 essays defending the Constitution against critics who were already writing under Roman pseudonyms like Cato, Brutus, and Federal Farmer
• Hamilton demonstrated PR genius by claiming the positive title "Federalist" while opponents became stuck with the negative label "Anti-Federalist"
• The name "Publius" strategically referenced a Roman hero who helped establish the Roman Republic
• The Federalist Papers argued that a t...

Dr. Sean Beienberg returns to explore the origin and purpose of the Federalist Papers as persuasive political documents designed to convince New York citizens to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Written primarily by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, these influential essays functioned as op-eds responding to constitutional critics while explaining the document's benefits and protections.

• Originally written as persuasive pieces explicitly aimed at New York state ratification
• Authored by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (New Yorkers), with James Madison (Virginia) joining to strengthen arguments
• Functioned as responses to critics like "Brutus" who expressed concer...

Dr. Colleen Sheehan explains why James Madison deserves the title "Father of the Constitution" and explores how this quiet, scholarly founder shaped American democracy through his preparation, vision, and belief in self-government.

• Madison was uniquely prepared for the Constitutional Convention, having studied the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation
• The Virginia Plan, based on Madison's ideas, set the agenda for the Constitutional Convention
• Madison combined the roles of statesman and scholar, preferring books over fashion
• The founders faced the unprecedented challenge of creating a government where people could rule themselves
• Madison believed the Constituti...

What makes the American system of government unique in world history? Dr. Justin Dyer, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and dean of the UT Austin School of Civic Leadership, returns to our podcast to unpack the founders' vision for limited government.

Dr. Dyer reveals how the founders created two distinct models of limited government operating simultaneously. At the state level, governments possessed broad authority over "health, safety, and morals," limited primarily through separation of powers and state bills of rights. The national government, however, was designed with the opposite presumption – possessing only th...

Dr. Paul Carrese explores John Locke's profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and American founding principles. Locke's philosophy of natural rights - that all humans possess inherent, equal rights to life, liberty, and property - provided the intellectual foundation for revolution and continues to shape American politics 250 years later.

• Locke was an Enlightenment philosopher whose Second Treatise of Government (1692) became central to American revolutionary thinking
• The Declaration's famous assertion that "all men are created equal" with "unalienable rights" directly echoes Locke's natural rights philosophy
• Locke's social contract theory established that governments exist solely to protec...

America's political philosophy emerged from a complex interplay of Enlightenment thought, with both radical and moderate strands shaping our founding documents and constitutional system.

• Multiple influences shaped American political thought—biblical Christianity, English common law, classical philosophy, and the Enlightenment
• The Enlightenment had two main strands influencing America: radical (emphasizing new ideas) and moderate (blending modern thought with tradition)
• Three key Enlightenment influences were John Locke, Montesquieu, and the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers
• The Declaration of Independence balances radical Enlightenment ideas (natural rights) with moderate elements (references to divinity and sacred honor)
• The Constitution reflects Mon...

Our fearless leader Dr. Paul Carrese explores republicanism—small r republicanism—and how it is reflected in the US Constitution.

• We are a democratic republic, not simply a democracy
• The Constitution guarantees every state a "Republican form of government" in Article 4, Section 4
• A republic means a more complex form of government with representation of the people
• Ancient Rome provided the model for American republicanism, while Athens represented direct democracy
• Our complex system of federalism creates multiple avenues for civic participation
• Republican complexity protects individual rights by creating more space for argument and deliberation Duration: 00:18:29

Dr. Phillip Muñoz explores the concept of social contracts and explains how they formed the foundation of American governance. He illustrates how these agreements transform potential chaos into ordered liberty, allowing diverse individuals to live together peacefully and prosperously.

• Social contracts/compacts address how we form political communities when we are all equal by nature
• Unlike families where authority is natural, political communities must establish governance through mutual agreement
• American revolutionaries needed a new framework for self-governance after rejecting British rule
• Social contracts provide security, law, and justice that cannot exist in a "state of...