Himalaya: Listen. Learn. Grow.

4.8K Ratings
Open In App
title

The 1787 Project

Justin Dyer

0
Followers
0
Plays
The 1787 Project

The 1787 Project

Justin Dyer

0
Followers
0
Plays
OVERVIEWEPISODESYOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Details

About Us

The 1787 Project is the podcast version of the lectures for Professor Justin Dyer's socially-distanced class on the U.S. Constitution at the University of Missouri. Running from August - December in the Fall of 2020, the course is about how the U.S. Constitution of 1787 frames the way we organize our life together as a political community. Published twice a week, the episodes explore who gets to decide big questions of public policy and why, analyze the design of our national political institutions and the contested boundaries between them, and look at the interplay of democratic politics and constitutional government.

Latest Episodes

The Individual Mandate and the Commerce Clause

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 contained a provision that required most Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court took up a challenge to this provision and held that Congress did not have the authority to pass the provision under the Commerce Clause but that it did have the authority to pass the provision under its enumerated power to lay and collect taxes.

13 min1 w ago
Comments
The Individual Mandate and the Commerce Clause

What Isn't Commerce?

After the New Deal and the major cases about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was an open question about the limits of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The first cases after Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause were United States v. Lopez (1995) Morrison v. United States (2000). Together with Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), these three cases put a distinctive mark on the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence and set up the more recent constitutional debate about the Individual Mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act.

16 min1 w ago
Comments
What Isn't Commerce?

What Does the Civil Rights Act Have to do with Commerce?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations. That part of the Act was challenged in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) when the owner of the motel said that Congress did not have the authority to pass Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the first place. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the act as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

12 min2 w ago
Comments
What Does the Civil Rights Act Have to do with Commerce?

The Constitutional Revolution of 1937

Justice Owen Roberts' 1937 vote to uphold a minimum wage law is remembered as the "switch in time that saved nine." It came on the heels of Franklin Roosevelt's March 9, 1937, fireside chat, where he criticized the Supreme Court for blocking needed economic reforms and proposed adding a number of justices to the Supreme Court. After the "switch in time," Roosevelt's judicial reform bill faltered and the Supreme Court upheld other major economic regulations passed by Congress. Whether or not Roosevelt's court-packing plan influenced Justice Roberts' vote, the Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence looked very different after 1937.

21 min2 w ago
Comments
The Constitutional Revolution of 1937

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Labor

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence made hard distinctions between commerce and such things as manufacturing and labor. This episode takes a look at three cases from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: United States v. E.C. Knight (1895); Champion v. Ames (1903); and Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918). Next, we will explore the Supreme Court's move away from these precedents beginning in the 1937 case of NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.

16 min3 w ago
Comments
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Labor

What is Commerce?

One of the powers of Congress, listed in Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, is the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Like a lot of big constitutional issues, the terms of debate for understanding the Commerce Clause were set by Chief Justice John Marshall in a decision from the early nineteenth century. In Gibbon v. Ogden (1824), Marshall argued that we should interpret the power to regulate commerce broadly, in light of the purpose of the Constitution to create a national government independent of the states and with powers adequate to achieve the great objects of national power.

12 min3 w ago
Comments
What is Commerce?

Why You Can Direct Order Wine in Missouri but not Arkansas

The case of Granholm v. Heald (2005) involves this question: may a state ban direct shipments to consumers from out-of-state wineries while allowing direct shipments to consumers from in-state wineries? The question forces us to consider the ways our national experiment with Prohibition in the 18th Amendment (1919) and its repeal in the 21st Amendment (1933) continues to affect the powers of state governments with respect to alcohol regulation.

12 minOCT 30
Comments
Why You Can Direct Order Wine in Missouri but not Arkansas

What Federalism Has to to do with Medicaid Expansion and Immigration

In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act expanding Medicaid eligibility, and the Arizona state legislature passed S.B. 1070 making it a state-level offense to violate certain provisions of federal immigration law. The Supreme Court heard challenges to each law in 2012, and the outcome of each case hinged on particular conceptions of the division of authority between the states and the national government under the U.S. Constitution.

19 minOCT 28
Comments
What Federalism Has to to do with Medicaid Expansion and Immigration

The Federalism Revolution of the 1990s

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist began slowly chipping away at national regulatory power by applying federalism-based limits on congressional authority. In two cases we examine today -- New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997) -- the Court articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine, drawing a bright line that prevents the national government from commandeering the state governments and forcing them into a national regulatory scheme.

20 minOCT 23
Comments
The Federalism Revolution of the 1990s

Tax = Destroy

The power to tax involves the power to destroy, Chief Justice John Marshall famously said in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the textbook federalism case from the early republic. Marshall's opinion in that case set the terms of debate for many of the constitutional controversies that would follow about the division of authority between the states and the national government. These controversies bring up fundamental questions about what kind of national government the Constitution created.

14 minOCT 21
Comments
Tax = Destroy

Latest Episodes

The Individual Mandate and the Commerce Clause

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 contained a provision that required most Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court took up a challenge to this provision and held that Congress did not have the authority to pass the provision under the Commerce Clause but that it did have the authority to pass the provision under its enumerated power to lay and collect taxes.

13 min1 w ago
Comments
The Individual Mandate and the Commerce Clause

What Isn't Commerce?

After the New Deal and the major cases about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was an open question about the limits of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The first cases after Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause were United States v. Lopez (1995) Morrison v. United States (2000). Together with Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), these three cases put a distinctive mark on the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence and set up the more recent constitutional debate about the Individual Mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act.

16 min1 w ago
Comments
What Isn't Commerce?

What Does the Civil Rights Act Have to do with Commerce?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations. That part of the Act was challenged in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) when the owner of the motel said that Congress did not have the authority to pass Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the first place. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the act as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

12 min2 w ago
Comments
What Does the Civil Rights Act Have to do with Commerce?

The Constitutional Revolution of 1937

Justice Owen Roberts' 1937 vote to uphold a minimum wage law is remembered as the "switch in time that saved nine." It came on the heels of Franklin Roosevelt's March 9, 1937, fireside chat, where he criticized the Supreme Court for blocking needed economic reforms and proposed adding a number of justices to the Supreme Court. After the "switch in time," Roosevelt's judicial reform bill faltered and the Supreme Court upheld other major economic regulations passed by Congress. Whether or not Roosevelt's court-packing plan influenced Justice Roberts' vote, the Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence looked very different after 1937.

21 min2 w ago
Comments
The Constitutional Revolution of 1937

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Labor

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence made hard distinctions between commerce and such things as manufacturing and labor. This episode takes a look at three cases from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: United States v. E.C. Knight (1895); Champion v. Ames (1903); and Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918). Next, we will explore the Supreme Court's move away from these precedents beginning in the 1937 case of NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.

16 min3 w ago
Comments
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Labor

What is Commerce?

One of the powers of Congress, listed in Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, is the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Like a lot of big constitutional issues, the terms of debate for understanding the Commerce Clause were set by Chief Justice John Marshall in a decision from the early nineteenth century. In Gibbon v. Ogden (1824), Marshall argued that we should interpret the power to regulate commerce broadly, in light of the purpose of the Constitution to create a national government independent of the states and with powers adequate to achieve the great objects of national power.

12 min3 w ago
Comments
What is Commerce?

Why You Can Direct Order Wine in Missouri but not Arkansas

The case of Granholm v. Heald (2005) involves this question: may a state ban direct shipments to consumers from out-of-state wineries while allowing direct shipments to consumers from in-state wineries? The question forces us to consider the ways our national experiment with Prohibition in the 18th Amendment (1919) and its repeal in the 21st Amendment (1933) continues to affect the powers of state governments with respect to alcohol regulation.

12 minOCT 30
Comments
Why You Can Direct Order Wine in Missouri but not Arkansas

What Federalism Has to to do with Medicaid Expansion and Immigration

In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act expanding Medicaid eligibility, and the Arizona state legislature passed S.B. 1070 making it a state-level offense to violate certain provisions of federal immigration law. The Supreme Court heard challenges to each law in 2012, and the outcome of each case hinged on particular conceptions of the division of authority between the states and the national government under the U.S. Constitution.

19 minOCT 28
Comments
What Federalism Has to to do with Medicaid Expansion and Immigration

The Federalism Revolution of the 1990s

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist began slowly chipping away at national regulatory power by applying federalism-based limits on congressional authority. In two cases we examine today -- New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997) -- the Court articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine, drawing a bright line that prevents the national government from commandeering the state governments and forcing them into a national regulatory scheme.

20 minOCT 23
Comments
The Federalism Revolution of the 1990s

Tax = Destroy

The power to tax involves the power to destroy, Chief Justice John Marshall famously said in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the textbook federalism case from the early republic. Marshall's opinion in that case set the terms of debate for many of the constitutional controversies that would follow about the division of authority between the states and the national government. These controversies bring up fundamental questions about what kind of national government the Constitution created.

14 minOCT 21
Comments
Tax = Destroy
success toast
Welcome to Himalaya LearningClick below to download our app for better listening experience.Download App