I think Jeffrey Rosen does a truly incredible job moderating thoughtful, and even friendly debates between people who disagree often profoundly. The conversations are subtle, sensitive, deeply informative. I teach moral and political philosophy at a small liberal arts college, and so I often think about how to make conversations just like these possible. Each episode is a wonderful model. In fact, right now I’m teaching a class on the philosophy of law and I am now even thinking of assigning some of these episodes to my students. Thank you, Jeffrey Rosen! I genuinely believe you’re doing a service to our country and its citizens. PS: a couple of reviews have claimed to discover a left-wing slant. I consider myself to be a conservative (in something like the Burke to Oakeshott tradition) and I am often frustrated by ideological bias and dogmatism in public discourse—but I have to say I found the claim that this podcast has any such bias utterly, utterly baffling. Every episode I’ve heard represents views on diametrically opposed sides of a legal or political divide, and both sides are represented by a brilliant, careful, well-informed thinker. This is exactly what makes it such an amazing podcast. So don’t listen to the haters! Instead listen to this amazing podcast.

Legal scholars engage in friendly debate representing opposing views. Immensely refreshing to hear well educated guests calmly and clearly present where they agree and disagree on high profile legal matters of the day. There is the occasional outlier, but it’s obvious that Jeff selects guests who are interested in informing the listener instead of the vitriolic combativeness we’re used to hearing from members of congress.

Just discovered this podcast from another podcast. So far so good! I love the long discussion. They say we the people like clips or short videos and we have developed a short attention span. Well, maybe...but for me I love a good long discussion that you and some other podcasts do offer. Thank you!

The current episode fails to challenge one of the guest’s assertion that Wicca is nothing but a “pseudo religion” despite it being practiced in its modern form for the better part of a century in America, and many of its adherents believing it’s much older; despite even the nation’s military and department of veterans affairs formally recognizing it as a bona ride religion; and despite the likely fact that he knows precious little about the philosophy and practices of Wicca. Furthermore, that same guest expounds on the virtues of Mormonism, a.k.a. The LDS Church — which itself was considered and maligned as a pseudo religion or harmful cult during its first decades and sometimes still is considered so by others. What a sad and disappointing irony that the same self-described atheist gay ethnically-Jewish man championing the virtues of LDS “peacemaking” and accommodation of other groups including members of minority groups (as opposed to his “sharp Christianity”) himself maligns and dismisses, out of hand, the minority religion that is Wicca and its believers. I say all this as a non-Wiccan monotheist.

Thoughtful, respectful discussion among distinguished scholars. I’m a lawyer, but you certainly don’t need to be one to enjoy this podcast. Please rethink inviting Sarah Isgur on the panel in the future. I value her intellect, and appreciate her viewpoints. However, her manner on the February 27, 2025 podcast was unkind, and frankly appeared to put the other panelists in an awkward position. She poked fun and laughed at an author who was not present to defend themselves. I would love to hear panelists with her views, but without the inclination for this type of behavior.

This is the podcast we need in these times. We absolutely need scholars and debate like this and commentary that brings us closer to the heart of the Constitution. Well worth a listen!

As an undergraduate pre-law student, I’ve turned to this show many times to hear liberal and conservative perspectives. The commentary has always been insightful, although I’ve repeatedly noticed a Left-wing and anti-Trump bias (see episodes on Donald Trump’s criminal trial and the merits of the indictments). No surprise there: Mr. Rosen wrote an anti-Trump piece for the left-wing Washington Post calling Trump a “demagogue.” Still, he facilitates great dialogue in each episode of this podcast and deserves credit. Criticisms of this podcast from the Left are insane. They range from smearing conservatives who appear on this show as “right-wing hacks”, such as Sarah Isgur, an accomplished, Harvard-educated attorney and former spokesperson for Trump’s DOJ; to accusing Mr. Rosen himself of spreading disinformation (whatever that means). They seem to prefer no conservative perspective at all. Good on Mr. Rosen and TCC for resisting the ugly Left-wing mob, and for championing the essential democratic principle of free speech from opposing viewpoints.

Many non-partisan media shows suffer from this issue, but you can’t platform right wing hacks and pretend you are unbiased. Putting them on as if they speak in good faith is in itself a form of bias. Sarah Isgur is a right wing hack and has no credibility on the law or in any legitimate legal circle. On almost any issue Sarah debates and equivocates in bad faith. As per usual, her conservative method of analysis is to accept what the court says as fact, despite the obvious holes, and then say “look, it must be right, they wouldn’t spin or lie and they have no agenda.” People understand that it is very difficult to get a reasonably mature or “normal” conservative to speak outside their bubble, but that shouldn’t mean you lower the bar for them. Don’t platform people who are fail to critically assess legal opinions and instead only see them through their political bias. Sarah Isgur cannot remove her conservative colored glasses. Amplifying that viewpoint injured the show’s nonpartisan stance.

Thank you for the discussions. I particularly enjoyed the discussion with Alison LaCroix and William B. Allen. As an immigrant I understood the constitution better than most, but still don’t know enough. In recent years, it seems to me there are forces seeking to destroy this country. Keep in mind that we have a Supreme Court justice who does not know what a Woman is. If you can redefine Woman, you can redefine freedom, patriotism, honesty, integrity, or any other word. With regard to succession, we had better hope that is an option. Do not look to the constitution or the civil war to decide this issue, but rather the Declaration of Independence. With the insanity of the authoritarian left, a total collapse of America is a very real possibility.

Another publicly funded (or created) outlet that try’s to put forth an “unbiased” show and yet is clearly left. I’ve not heard a single show that doesn’t take the Biden/Democrat side.

Hi, I am listening to Tim rebut Chris’s point about public accountability. He says that agencies do not allow for accountability to the voters and that is simply not true. Agencies have a very strict administrative rule making process that REQUIRES NOTICE AND COMMENT from the public and only that after that process can the agency begin to write the rules for the legislation. So what is he talking about? There is a process already built in for accountability to the voters. I took an Administrative Law class in grad school and the APA IS SUPER STRICT. Q: for Tim: Using your logic about the constitutionality of Chevron, do you think judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) should be overturned? This case gave SCOTUS their judicial review power, not the Constitution.

I am continually amazed by the job Jeffrey Rosen and this podcast do in making contemporary and historical legal issues interesting and educational, even to non-lawyers like me.

I understand this is a both-sides approach to looking at issues; however, a bit more effort should be put into recruiting conservative voices that are informed and interested in engaging in good faith debate. This does not mean the “liberal” voice is always correct, but the consistency of disinformation from the right side of the panel is hard to ignore. It has not improved.

Information dissemination in the 21st century - the nucleus of multiple crises in America. So great to have reasoned and good-humored experts identify problems and propose solutions. Perhaps Mr. Musk will tune in. Ms Smith perpetuates the impulse to recreate Jim Crow laws in a new guise - free speech. Joshua makes a clear and convincing case for the chaos such a ruling in favor of Smith would unleash and the setback for civil rights. Thank you for celebrating Ned Blackhawk’s monumental book. I have read it and will look for Brenda Child’s book about the boarding schools for native children. Organizations like The National Constitution Center can override the damage some leaders are doing by further truncating the American history curriculum.

Love this podcast!!! I love learning and you make it so easy

Why is it that when any organization takes government funding they become a reliable mouthpiece for the leftist elites who feel entitled to rule. The national Constitution Center is one of the reasons America elected Trump twice and why the only chance our country has to survive as a free republic is to elect Trump for a third time so the leftist elites can be brought under the control of the American people instead of the people being controlled by the leftist elites.

I have been a long time listener of this podcast

This podcast is wonderful for learning more about the application of The Constitution in our democracy. It provides practical explanations and helps people understand how our government was designed to work, with some cool historical analysis thrown in. I am loving all the great guests and information!

I really like this podcast-especially some of the archive about the history of the Supreme Court and the influence of some of the founding fathers.

The disinformation; or alternative facts; or plain distortion of facts which comes from Many of the more conservative guests on this platform is difficult to ignore. The liberal leaning guests would politely disagree in an attempt to refute ridiculous and sometimes outrageous claims. I won’t continue to follow this increasingly disappointing podcast where one side debates in good faith and one side just lies.

I’m so thankful for TCC. I struggled with “Break up w/ the Founders” episode. There were too many panelists and an ideological imbalance at that. I find Dr. Roosevelt a dubious voice whose historic pedigree buys him undue influence. He seems to fundamentally misunderstand Locke, whose Second Treaty he abuses to buttress a book-selling opinion on “All men are created equal.” He’s not a good voice for TCC. I find him amateurish compared to other guests left, right, and center.

The Center’s podcast offers a peek under the hood at the legal machinations driving the deliberation of our most basic rights and freedoms. But with it’s uncritical, equal time focus on the legal arguments, it’s become merely a forum to launder arguments made in bad faith as cover for what in fact are the right’s political and social objectives pursued through packed federal courts.

Love it!!

An excellent presentation of competing progressive and moderate/conservative perspectives. Yet Mr. Rosen fails to question underlying definitions of judicial philosophy as influencing judicial interpretation and construction. A prominent example is the utter failure of Mr. Shaw to define “diversity” as rationalization for race as a consideration in the two college admissions cases in most recent podcast. Indeed none of the SCOTUS justices even raised such fundamental question when invoked by the defendants during oral argument to sidestep issue of the reality of racial preference (under 14th Amendment) by First Amendment claim of “diversity.” Intellectual honesty is not so served.

Where else can you find substantive debates about and the intellectual basis for our constitutional democracy? Jeffrey Rosen and his team are providing the nation with a free education on ways to argue using the people's document.

I was an avid listener until the woefully inadequate discussion of the Dobbs decision and the descent of SCOTUS into the netherworld of irrationality.

Fantastic, in depth, nuanced shows…you’ll really understand the issues it covers after an episode. The moderator sometimes fawns over the guests (“thanks SO much for that!”) but the show certainly models thoughtful, nuanced, and respectful debate/discussion.

Love the deep dive on amendments, interviews with justices, and respectful conversations. Never thought I’d be later downloading the text of Supreme Court cases or listening to oral arguments (see Oyez podcast!) but this podcast whets the appetite to learn more. Host is an excellent facilitator, very knowledgeable and unflaggingly cheerful which I think helps encourage civil and constructive disagreement among guests (of various backgrounds and political leanings).

I’ve been listening back through the Florida HB 1557 episode and was blown away with how great Joshua Matz was. So clearly spoken and thoughtful in his responses. He has an accessible way of laying out the argument that makes it easy to follow. Please have him back!

I went to law school years ago, never passed the bar, but this material fascinated me! Everyone needs to avail themselves of this great podcast. Truly amazing.

I've been looking for content that takes a fair and balanced approach to current events and contentious points in our world and unfortunately this show comes up short as it has proved unable to shake its political leanings.

Tried to find a nonpartisan podcast on the constitution. All was well for 6 months until the latest episode which accuses Republican senators of questioning the recent Supreme Court appointee to specifically gain favorability with the Q anon crowd (with 0 evidence). Had a fan of the show. Just lost one. Disappointing.

I just love the respectful, informative discussions presented in this podcast. Jeffrey Rosen and the We The People team consistently produce high quality, timely content featuring guests with deep knowledge of the US Constitution, its application and history. Just the sort of show we need during these fractious times.

Please give the NCC a listen. They take the temperature down on divisive issues and March the discussion forward. Please consider donating!

I love this podcast and if the Supreme Court interests you, you will love it too. They do a great job of having guests who are thoughtful and opinionated and have totally different views on important topics but at the same time almost never are they swarmy or rude. It’s a great example of how reasoned discussion and debate can still exist and is a fundamental part of our democracy. Well done.

Tries to present as unbiased we look at both sides; but can tell it is lopsided to left. Wish it gave more facts less opinions

I really enjoy how the participants on this podcast remain civil with one another even when debating constitutional issues that I would consider extremely polarizing or opinion defining. It is nice to hear people able to show both sides of issues.

I thoroughly enjoy listening to the informed and respectful discussions and debates on this podcast. Keep up the good work.

The National Constitution Center, including this podcast, is an essential resource for our nation. 2020 has been a year of disruption &, in many ways, revolution. While our nation’s roots can be said to be firmly planted in the soil of disruption & revolution, our Founders struggled with (& seemed to embrace) the tension between the emotional & the rational, the ideal & the real and other such existential tensions. Our nation has, collectively, witnessed our strongest & weakest instincts manifest in one historic wave after another. Ironically, there can be a tendency to neglect our nation’s history in the midst of these present historic waves. The National Constitution Center provides essential sails & a rudder to help us captain & crew the ship of our nation. It does so by struggling with & embracing the tensions of our nation’s history through the lens of our nation’s history.

First the jazzy intro music sets up an enjoyable variable amount of time spent with imminent legal scholars. As someone who loves reading about history and law but is in the medical profession by day, this podcast helps me feel engaged and educated. As said in other reviews, start with the Constitution project.

Professor Rosen does an excellent job as moderator of this weekly podcast. If you want to gain insights into and develop a better understanding the Constitution of the United States then “We The People” is the podcast for you.

Informed civil discourse!!!! Thanks Jeff

Ready to listen to experts instead of pundits? Want to understand how the Constitution works instead of how it can be evoked to best serve a particular ideology? Me too. That’s why I love this podcast.

I love the National Constitution Center podcasts! Valuable civics lessons and fascinating discussions and debates! I feel engaged and learn a lot from them.

The podcast is unique in its ability to gather academics of the American justice system with a lens of constitutional law. Where it lacks is in its continual dismissal of the many America’s that exist in relation to the constitution with a strong favor towards white america and white academics who are incapable of seeing their own whiteness and understanding parts of our culture that do not lend themselves easily to white people and others who do not live completely integrated lives. Example: the latest episode having arguments comparing the 1619 project, to the 1776 report; and speaking against what white elite liberals and conservative people alike call “cancel culture” which is the group appropriation equivalent of the “angry black woman” trope which shuts down avenues of deep seeded truth, and replaces it with erasure and white supremacy. It would be nice to have panels where zero white people exist an equal amount to the opposite. I’ll keep listening, sometimes reluctantly, because I have a desire to learn. Even if that learning is limited by the white gaze.

The show has a lot of potential but it’s execution is too political. The host and most of his guests are obviously liberal legal academics trying to portray themselves as unbiased commentators. Even the episode titles have a liberal bent. It’s totally fine for people to be liberal, conservative, indifferent, etc, and it’s fine for those people to have podcasts. Just be honest about your convictions and don’t try to act like you’re “above the fray” of politics and simply stating facts. More conservative guests might help balance the show but there’s not many of them in academia.

Awesome. Get views from all sides. Most entertaining educational podcast.

I discovered this podcast in seeking out legal commentary from diverse viewpoints on constitutional issues and current events and this has been wonderful. The podcast has a variety of expert voices who approach an issue from differing perspectives, modeling civil dialogue and making for intellectually stimulating discussion! I have already had several insights become helpful in discussions with others on political and constitutional topics. Thank you so much for this wonderful offering!

Very bipartisan and do a great job of having scholars from all perspectives on. Great resource and has taught me a ton about the government and the constitution.

This is the best podcast about the American constitution. Keep up the good work!