Your Weekly Constitutional

We join Meg Kennedy on a worldwide manhunt - well, actually, it's more like a furniture hunt.Meg is the Acting Director of Museum Programs at James Madison's Montpelier, which means that she's in charge of finding original pieces of furnture, decorations and documents to bring back to the Madison home, no matter where in the world the search may take her.Meg is a historical Nancy Drew - and, yes, she even talks about an old clock.

We'll speak with Catherine Allgor about her new book, "The Queen of America," which discusses not only Dolley Madison, but also Mary Cutts, the relatively unknown woman who gave us almost everything we know about Dolley.Mary Cutts is an example of the "vanishing women" of American history, women whose many and significant contributions have been obscured not only by the passage of time, but by the times in which they lived.Join us for an enlightening interview with Professor Allgor, and for excerpts from her November, 2012 presentation at Montpelier.

No, not that President. Another president, and one who knows a great deal about the subject: Jonathan R. Alger, the new President of James Madison University. In his old job as Assistant General Counsel at the University of Michigan, President Alger oversaw two of the most important affirmative action cases in U.S. history. Those two cases - Grutter and Gratz - emphasized the importance of diversity in higher education. And those two cases might get reversed this term. Is educational diversity a constitutional basis for affirmative action programs in college and university admissions? Join us for the inside story of the Grutter and Gratz cases, and what might happen to them when the the Supreme Court decides Fisher v. the University of Texas.

The State of Georgia has miles and miles of beautiful highways, and the Ku Klux Klan wants to adopt one. But the Governor doesn't think that's such a good idea.Now the Klan has a lawyer - two lawyers, actually - from the Georgia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. And we talked to both of them. We also talked to the head of the Georgia branch of the ACLU and asked her why she would agree to represent such clients.It doesn't get any better than this.

Ever think that the Founders were a bunch of demigods with chiseled features, carved in marble and mounted on pedestals, who spent their lives striking poses and making memorable speeches? Yeah, we did too. Then we grew up.And when we started really studying our Founders, we learned something: while many of them were extraordinary people, they were also, well, people. And that means that they had flaws. Some more than others.This is the story of one particular Founder who had more than his share of - ahem - moral flexibility, a fellow who did some extraordinary things, but who also had a few of what our younger listeners might call Epic Fails. His name was William Blount, and we call him our Founding Scoundrel.

Ever feel like somebody's watching you? Well maybe someone is.We talk to a federal magistrate who is very concerned about the remarkable number of secret surveillance orders being issued by the courts, orders that enable the government to access your text messages, emails, and even to track your mobile phone's location - all without your knowledge.Don't believe us? Ask David Petraeus. Or simply listen to this episode - but you may want to use somebody else's computer.

We talk about a variety of controversial constitutional issues -- from the new health care mandate to gun control -- with the 2012 candidates for Virginia's Ninth Congressional District, incumbent Morgan Griffith, a Republican, and challenger Anthony Flaccavento, a Democrat.The two candidates have constitutional perspectives that are very respresentative of their respective parties. In fact, we're willing to bet that, wherever you live, you have - or will one day - face a similar choice of constitutional philosophies in your district's congressional race.Of course, the 2012 race is over now, and the winner of the Fightin' Ninth was . . . .

The Founders thought this! The Framers said that! You've heard such statements. In fact, it sometimes seems that everyone who has a strong opinion about the Constitution tries to enlist the Framers as allies. But how many modern pundits have actually done their homework? Are their claims about the Framers accurate?Well, here's one fellow who has done the research: Michael Meyerson of the University of Baltimore's School of Law. Mike has gone back and actually read what several of the most prominent Framers said, wrote and did on the subject of church-state relations - people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and, of course, James Madison. And Mike tells us all about it in a lively, entertaining way. We had a great time speaking with him, and we guarantee that you'll enjoy him as much as we did.And once you've listened, you can tell all of your friends what the most important Framers really thought about church-state relations.

Git along there, little dogies -- it's our annual Roundup of interesting and important cases on the docket of the United States Supreme Court.Grab your ropes, saddle up and join Professors Judie Barger, Pat Baker, Charlie Condon, Kendall Issac, Buzz Belleville and Doug McKechnie as they pick six fascinating cases to discuss with your host, Stewart Harris. It's a good 'un.

Whatever happened to the ERA? You remember - the Equal Rights Amendment. Angry women. Angry men. Disco. Hey, it was the '70's. We'll talk to Wanda Sobieski, the same Knoxville attorney who did such a great job telling us about women's suffrage and the 19th Amendment awhile back. Wanda gives us the big picture, as well as a fascinating tale of personal involvement in one of the great constitutional questions of our time.

That's what Alexander Hamilton once called the Articles of Confederation - imbecilic. And that's why he wanted to throw out the Articles in their entirety and start fresh with what ultimately became our current Constitution. Sandy Levinson, a distinguished law professor from the University of Texas, doesn't want to throw out our whole Constitution, but he thinks that some parts of it are definitely worth changing. And we're not talking little stuff here - he goes right after the basics, even revisiting some of the very issues that were hotly debated during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Hey, that's why we have an amendment process, right?

Who ya gonna vote for in November? Mitt? Barack?That's a political question. Here's a constitutional question: will your vote matter? Or is your state so reliably Red or Blue that your vote will be buried beneath an avalanche of the other party's votes?We'll talk about the constitutional institution at the heart of such questions: the Electoral College. We'll hear from someone who supports the College as a protection of state sovereignty. And we'll hear from someone who doesn't like the College at all, and who has a plan for effectively abolishing it -- without amending the Constitution.Listen up!

We talk a lot about current constitutional issues on this show. We also talk a lot about history. And sometimes, we pause, take a deep breath, and talk about Big Ideas - note the capital letters. That's what a group of scholars did recently at Montpelier's Center for the Constitution, and our host, Stewart Harris, was among them. He shares a conversation he had with another conference participant, Brad Rourke, about two big issues in constitutional theory: political participation and political ethics. We also hear from Doug Smith, the Executive Director of the Center for the Constitution, about why such conferences are important. It will blow your mind.

Rumor has it that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at the last minute on the Affordable Care Act decision. And some conservatives are none too happy about it. They're calling him all kinds of unpleasant names.But did the Chief Justice actually switch his vote? And if so, so what? We'll talk to former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White and to Professor George Kuney, two distinguished professors at the University of Tennessee College of Law. They'll tell us all about how appellate courts work, and what (might have) happened just before the decision on "Obamacare" was handed down.

What does wine have to do with the United States Constitution? Well, as it turns out, it has much more to do with our constitutional history than (hic!) you'd think.We have a fascinating discussion with Maja Djorčev, a graduate student studying wine geography, who tells us all about this obscure, flavorful, potent brown wine, which was once all but extinct.

Modern warfare - again. But this time it's all about missiles and explosions and drones. Or, as the government calls them, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.Who has the constitutional power to use these remarkable weapons? In places where there is no declared war? Against American citizens?We talk to Scott Shane, a national security reporter for the New York Times.

No guns. No bombs. No explosions. Just a bunch of techno-nerds in a secret room, tapping away on their keyboards.They can do a lot of damage. But can they commit acts of war? And just who has the constitutional power to authorize them to do so?We talk to Professor Joseph S. Nye, former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Was James Madison a tree-hugger?Although there are no historical photos showing him in a tie-died shirt or wearing Birkenstocks, he was quite a conservationist, as were many of the Founders.We speak with Sandy Mudrinich, who cares for the grounds of Madison's living legacy, Montpelier.

We all know about the duel. It didn't turn out so well for Alexander Hamilton. But it didn't turn out very well for Aaron Burr, either.What happened to Burr after the Interview at Weehawken? Quite a lot, it seems. Grandiose schemes of conquest. Conspiracy. And the most famous trial for treason in all of American History.Listen in and find out how it all ended up.

The Ten Commandments. It seems that we've been arguing about them ever since Moses brought them down from the mountain. Lately, we've been arguing about whether posting them in public schools, public parks and other public spaces violates the First Amendment. It's one of those constitutional issues that just keeps coming back. Dare we call it - eternal?Listen in and decide for yourself.