Gavin Howe
The podcast What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law explores the ways in which the Trump administration pushed constitutional limits and the resulting legal challenges. Hosted by acclaimed podcaster Roman Mars, the show is a fun, casual Con Law 101 class that uses the tumultuous activities of the executive branch under Trump to teach listeners about the US Constitution. The podcast is co-hosted by Professor Elizabeth Joh, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, who teaches Intro to Constitutional Law. Each week, Professor Joh would check Twitter to see what the 45th President had said and how it aligned with the judicial branch's interpretation of the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Host | Roman Mars |
| Co-host | Professor Elizabeth Joh |
| Theme | Understanding the U.S. Constitution through the actions of the Trump administration |
| Format | Casual, weekly Con Law 101 class |
| Music | Doomtree |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The limits of presidential immunity
The podcast "What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law" explores the limits of presidential immunity and other constitutional issues that arose during the Trump administration. The podcast is hosted by acclaimed podcaster Roman Mars, creator of "99% Invisible", and co-hosted by Professor Elizabeth Joh, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law.
During the Trump presidency, Professor Joh would check Twitter five minutes before each class to see what the President had said and how it compared to 200 years of the judicial branch interpreting and ruling on the Constitution. This inspired Mars to create a podcast that would use the tumultuous activities of the Trump administration to teach listeners about the US Constitution.
One of the key questions the podcast explores is the extent to which a president can be held legally accountable for their actions. For example, during the Mueller investigation, Trump's lawyers asserted that all of his actions were within his rights as President and could not be classified as obstruction of justice. However, as the podcast discusses, this raises questions about the limits of presidential immunity and when a president can be sued in civil court.
Another example of the legal challenges posed by the Trump administration is the case of Roger Stone, an associate of Donald Trump. After Stone was convicted of seven felony counts, including lying to authorities, the President intervened through tweets and the recommendations for a heavy penalty were rescinded. This incident prompts discussions on presidential interference and prosecutorial discretion.
The podcast also delves into Trump's threat to revoke birthright citizenship with an executive order and his claim that he could withhold federal funding from cities that refused to cooperate with his immigration policies. These actions raise questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and the limits of presidential authority.
Through exploring these issues, the podcast provides a fun and casual Con Law 101 class, shedding light on the complexities of presidential immunity and the ways in which the Trump administration pushed constitutional limits.
Mother-in-Law's US Emigration: What's the Process?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Presidential interference and prosecutorial discretion
The podcast "What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law" explores the ways in which the Trump administration pushed constitutional limits and raises challenging issues. One such issue is presidential interference and prosecutorial discretion. An example of this is when prosecutors recommended heavy penalties for Roger Stone, an associate of Donald Trump, after being convicted of seven felony counts, including lying to authorities. However, after intervention from the Attorney General and tweets from the President, those recommendations were withdrawn. This incident brings into question the extent of presidential power and the independence of the prosecution.
The podcast also discusses the limits of presidential immunity and whether a president can be sued in civil court. For instance, during the Mueller investigation, Trump's lawyers asserted that his actions were within his rights as President and did not constitute obstruction of justice. Additionally, the podcast delves into the president's ability to withhold federal funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with his immigration policies, further highlighting the potential for presidential interference in various domains.
The case of Roger Stone underscores the complex dynamics between the executive branch and the judicial system. It raises questions about the extent to which the president can influence prosecutorial decisions and the discretion afforded to prosecutors in their decision-making process. The discussion surrounding presidential immunity and the potential for civil lawsuits against the president further emphasizes the delicate balance between presidential powers and the checks and balances inherent in the US constitutional system.
The Trump administration's actions and the subsequent legal discussions highlighted in the podcast provide a unique educational opportunity. By examining these events, the podcast offers listeners insight into the complexities of constitutional law and the challenges that arise when longstanding norms and interpretations of the Constitution are tested by a president who operates in an erratic and unpredictable manner. This includes exploring the limits of executive privilege, the president's authority to make war, and the potential consequences of their actions, such as impeachment trials.
In conclusion, the "What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law" podcast uses the tumultuous activities of the Trump administration to delve into critical legal concepts such as presidential interference and prosecutorial discretion. By examining specific cases and incidents, the podcast provides a deeper understanding of the US Constitution and the challenges it faces in the modern era.
Law Firm Opportunities: Berkeley Law Student Bidding
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Alien Enemies Act and deportation threats
The Alien Enemies Act is a 1798 wartime law that gives the US President wide powers to imprison and deport noncitizens during a time of war. The law was enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage during wartime, but it has been criticised for posing a risk of abuse and rights violations.
In 2025, US President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. Trump claimed that the gang was conducting irregular warfare and posed an invasion threat to the US. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use the law to deport the accused gang members, but it also ruled that the administration must give them the chance to legally fight their deportation orders.
Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act was controversial and sparked legal challenges. Critics argued that he was wrongly invoking a centuries-old wartime law to bypass immigration protections and that his use of the act was unlawful and discriminatory. The ACLU and Democracy Forward sued the Trump administration to prevent the deportation of five Venezuelan men under the act, and a US district judge blocked their deportation.
The use of the Alien Enemies Act also drew criticism from Venezuela, which said it "unjustly criminalises Venezuelan migration". In addition, civil rights groups argued that Trump's use of the act was illegal and discriminated against immigrants based on their ancestry.
The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked in response to unlawful migration and cross-border narcotics trafficking, which has been criticised as a non-literal reading of the law. The act has only been used a few times during major conflicts, and its use in peacetime has been described as a staggering abuse.
Suing Publications: What Law Protects You?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US Constitution and police brutality
The US Constitution and federal laws prohibit police brutality and the use of excessive force by police officers. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to live free from excessive force while detained by the police. If an individual's constitutional rights are violated by police brutality, they may have recourse through federal and state laws. Civil rights laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, allow for attorney fees and compensatory and punitive damages as incentives for victims to enforce their rights.
In addition to the Civil Rights Act, individuals may also file police brutality lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The United States Department of Justice may also file a lawsuit if a police officer willfully deprives an individual of their constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 make it illegal for the government to deny a person's constitutional rights, and police officers act on behalf of the government even when using excessive force.
While police officers are generally immune from lawsuits related to the performance of their jobs, they can be held liable for willful, unreasonable conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights. Defense attorneys may raise the defense of qualified immunity, which exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer's enforcement of the law. However, this defense only applies if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.
Balancing College and a Law Enforcement Career
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Presidential power to make war
The “What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law” podcast explores the constitutional law issues that arose during the Trump presidency. One such issue is the presidential power to make war, which is also referred to as war powers.
War Powers refer to the US Congress's and the President's Constitutional powers over military or armed conflicts. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. On the other hand, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution designates the President as the "Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces", giving them the authority to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war.
The framers of the Constitution divided war powers between Congress and the President to ensure that the decision to go to war could only be made with the widest possible political consensus. While Congress has the authority to declare war, the President has the power to repel sudden attacks and conduct a duly authorized war. This division of powers ensures that the President cannot unilaterally initiate a war without Congressional approval.
Despite this division of powers, there have been instances where Presidents have engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent, such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Afghanistan War of 2001. These operations are, therefore, not considered official wars by the United States. Additionally, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to communicate to Congress the commitment of troops within 48 hours and to remove all troops after 60 days without an extension from Congress.
The interpretation of the extent of Presidential war powers is a complex and ongoing debate, with some arguing that the President's constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defending the United States and its forces against imminent attack.
Who Can Be Sued? Principal or Agent?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
It is a podcast hosted by acclaimed podcaster Roman Mars, with Professor Elizabeth Joh as a co-host. It is a fun, casual Con Law 101 class that uses the tumultuous activities of the executive branch under Trump to teach listeners about the US Constitution.
During the four years of the Trump presidency, Professor Joh would check Twitter five minutes before each class to see what the President had tweeted and how it compared to 200 years of the judicial branch interpreting and ruling on the Constitution. Roman Mars, anxious about the norms and laws being tested in the Trump era, asked his neighbour, Elizabeth, to explain what was going on from a Constitutional law perspective.
The limits of presidential immunity, when a president can be sued in civil court, whether the president can withhold federal funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with his immigration policies, and the power dynamic between Congress and the President in declaring war.
Elizabeth Joh is a law professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, where she teaches constitutional law and criminal procedure. She has written widely on law and emerging technologies and has provided commentary for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Slate.
