Podcast | Trump v. United States and the National Security Constitution

In this episode, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Deborah Pearlstein of Princeton University, and Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation to explore Trump v. United States, presidential immunity, and the updated edition of Koh’s landmark book, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century. This program originally streamed live on July 1, 2024 as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall program series
Register for upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/Constitu...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...

[@SteveBrant55]

Hugely important conversation. Thank you! I particularly appreciate the point that the Presidency changed when America became "the" biggest player on the global stage. The cultural desire post-WWII to "control" the world led in my opinion to a desire (perhaps subconscious at first) for the President to "control" the nation. Despite the warning from Eisenhower's Farewell Address that the military industrial complex was becoming too powerful, I believe Congress is complicit in allowing the big money forces at the heart of that complex (and big money forces overall) to gain so much power. There might have been a window for halting that rise to power during the Kennedy administration, but that's just a guess on my part based on knowing Kennedy was pro-world peace in ways that (I believe) got him killed. Thank you again for this important discussion, which I will share widely. (I think it's crazy that on the morning of July 5th it only has 685 views!)

[@fire_tower]

If the Legislative could pass law (not amendment) that could override the plaintext of duties. The issue I see is the ability to successfully attack a president for unofficial actions.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Arrest the Justices, Trump and his henchmen - and then see how they feel about this judgement? How could they complain?

[@spiritofseventysix1155]

What kind of comments are you insinuating... you're coming across just like your preposterous ignorance of those you lay your wrath upon... current expression of confession through projection ... and a clear example of one twisted by your TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).