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” was written to move with time. That leads us to the question of proportionality: Does the punishment fit the crime? We explore incorporation through the 14th Amendment, which extends these protections to the states, and examine how courts gauge national consensus by scanning state laws, jury practices, and expert evidence. Along the way, we examine solitary confinement and what medical research now shows about the brain after two weeks alone, raising the tension between tradition and proof.

The death penalty takes center stage as a case study in evolving standards of decency. We talk about juveniles, intellectual disability, and what neuroscience reveals about responsibility and foresight. We also confront the practical and ethical puzzles of lethal injection—its risk of severe pain, the refusal of medical professionals to participate, and what that says about dignity under the law. Throughout, we highlight the danger of irreversible error and why a system built to restrain government power must be careful, consistent, and humane, even with people who have done terrible harm.

If you care about criminal justice reform, constitutional law, or simply the difference between punishment and cruelty, this conversation will challenge and ground your thinking. Listen, share with a friend, and tell us where you draw the line on decency today. Subscribe for more deep dives, and leave a review to help others find the show.

Eastern State Penitentiary Episode

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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 incorporation brought most of the Bill of Rights to bear on the states.

We walk through the Federalist case from James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, the critics’ fear that enumerating rights could imply broader federal power, and Madison’s fix: a rule of construction that prevents the list of rights from enlarging national authority. That lens clarifies modern controversies. Should judges treat the Ninth as a source of enforceable rights against the states? Most justices have said no, warning that it would flip the Amendment’s purpose and strain federalism. We examine Robert Bork’s “inkblot” line, the real methodological challenge of identifying “other rights,” and why state courts—armed with their own Ninth-like clauses—face a different set of choices rooted in state constitutional tradition.

If you’ve ever wondered whether the Ninth Amendment hides secret rights or simply protects the Constitution’s structure, this conversation delivers a grounded answer. You’ll come away with a sharper grasp of the Amendment’s text, history, and function, plus a clearer view of how it fits with the Tenth, incorporation, and the ongoing push and pull between national power and state authority. If this helped reframe how you read the Ninth, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to tell us what you think.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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 discipline, humility, and teamwork guide her approach to policy, and why results for constituents matter more than party labels. We explore the ripple effects of service organizations, the transformative power of the GI Bill, and how the integration of the armed forces helped accelerate civil rights—clear examples of how military service has shaped American democracy beyond the battlefield.

Together we dig into what freedom really means in practice: the right to vote, to learn, to work, to be safe, and to pursue happiness. Stacy reflects on seeing Germany before and after the wall fell, a reminder that political choices write themselves into daily life. We talk about listening across differences, keeping faith with a “seven generations” lens, and turning gratitude into action—whether that’s mentoring, volunteering, supporting veteran-led groups, or simply taking time to learn a veteran’s story.

If this conversation moves you, subscribe, share the episode with someone you care about, and leave a review. Then tell us: what’s one concrete way you’ll serve your community this week?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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 citizens. From there, we break down the Sixth Amendment’s working parts—speedy and public trials, confrontation, compulsory process, and the right to counsel—showing how each element turns a trial into a transparent test of proof rather than a bureaucratic grind. We also trace the uniquely American expansion of counsel rights to appointed counsel for the indigent, aligning fairness with reality.

Then we pivot to the takings clause and its modern battleground: what counts as a public use, and when regulation becomes a taking. You’ll hear why just compensation matters as a bridge between individual property rights and shared infrastructure needs. Finally, we explore the Seventh Amendment’s civil jury, where everyday disputes and high‑stakes class actions alike become engines of accountability. Through diversity jurisdiction and community judgment, civil juries set incentives that touch product safety, environmental harm, and professional standards.

Along the way, we surface open questions around self‑incrimination, double jeopardy, and qualified immunity, and we connect historical intent to today’s courtroom realities. If you care about due process, eminent domain, civil juries, and how constitutional rights work on the ground, this conversation offers clarity you can use. Enjoy the episode, then share it with a friend—and leave a quick review to tell us which protection you think matters most.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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 expectation of privacy alongside trespass
• Jones and GPS tracking as both trespass and privacy intrusion
• metadata, mass surveillance, and the limits of older precedents
• why recent Fourth Amendment cases often show cross‑ideological agreement

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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. From there, we unpack why the Constitution authorized peacetime armies, why Anti-Federalists worried about oppression, and why the Second Amendment’s operative command—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”—protects an individual right. Professor Lund explains how “well-regulated” meant appropriate rather than heavy-handed, and how the amendment restrains Congress from disabling the people under the guise of militia regulation.

As the conversation moves to modern law, we examine incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment and the reality that today’s regulations raise questions the founders didn’t face. Lund turns to Locke and Blackstone to argue that self-defense sits at the core of our political morality: government bears primary responsibility for enforcement, but individuals retain the right to repel lethal threats and resist oppression when law fails. That framework helps distinguish rules that enhance safety—like universal airport screening—from unsecured “gun-free zones” that signal vulnerability.

Finally, we explore a provocative civic proposal: revive a modern militia ethos through universal small-arms competence, end outdated exclusions, and use training to foster self-reliance, especially for those most at risk. The result is a fresh lens on gun policy that prioritizes liberty without trivializing safety and treats citizens as responsible partners in their own protection. If you value constitutional clarity and practical solutions, this conversation will challenge assumptions and sharpen your thinking.

Professor Lund recommends The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for more, including the section on the Second Amendment that he authored.

More from Professor Lund Here

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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. law. You’ll hear how the Supreme Court approached Westboro Baptist Church in Snyder v. Phelps, and why deeply hurtful funeral protests still qualified as protected speech. The discussion then turns to Brandenburg’s imminence standard—why advocacy, even of violence, is generally protected unless it is intended and likely to spark immediate unlawful acts.

Context matters as much as content. We break down what “constitutionally protected” actually means, how the First Amendment binds government actors but not private employers or platforms, and when different rules apply because the state is acting as an employer, educator, or property manager. Finally, we connect speech, press, and assembly: how mass communication gained equal protection, why peaceable protest is essential, and when content-neutral limits like permits, noise rules, or entrance access pass legal muster without becoming censorship.

If you care about free expression, public protest, and the real law behind the headlines, this conversation will sharpen your understanding and challenge your assumptions. Listen, share with a friend who loves debate, and leave a review to tell us where you’d draw the line.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

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 licensing or punishment. We break down where the law draws rigid boundaries, focusing on defamation: the difference between opinion and false factual claims, how libel and slander work, and why public figures face the “actual malice” standard. Then we turn to news gathering, highlighting the widely recognized right to record police and other officials performing their duties in public, and why that right is essential to any meaningful freedom to publish.

As the conversation moves online, we connect historical principles to modern technology. The same rules that governed pamphlets and newspapers now apply to tweets, blogs, livestreams, and uploads: you can’t publish actual threats or defamatory lies, but you can share opinions, criticism, and truthful reporting. We also show how courts often treat speech and press as one broader freedom of communication, and we point listeners to accessible resources that summarize what courts actually hold. By the end, you’ll know how to avoid legal pitfalls, assert your right to record and report, and understand why a vibrant press—professional and citizen—keeps democratic life honest.

If this conversation helped clarify your rights, follow the show, share the episode with a friend who posts online, and leave a review with one question you want us to tackle next.

Check out Free Speech Rules on YouTube.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics