Strict Scrutiny - The Promise and Perils of Presidential Power

Episode Date: January 6, 2025

On the fourth anniversary of January 6th, Leah, Melissa & Kate dive deep on presidential power: how the presidency became what it is today, transitions of power, and how we’ve seen checks on the power of the president from unexpected quarters. Joining them are two experts: Lindsay Chervinsky, author of Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic and Corey Brettschneider, author of The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by OneSkin. January is all about fresh starts. And right now it's time to swap out the skincare products that are weighing your skin down in favor of a regimen that is scientifically proven to transform your skin at the cellular level, something today's sponsor, OneSkin, knows all about. OneSkin's products are powered by OS1,

a proprietary peptide that the four founders, who are all skin longevity scientists, developed after testing 900 other peptides. And it's scientifically proven to switch off the aging dysfunctional cells that cause lines, wrinkles, and thinning skin. Can this product help Sam Alito? Because he's got some really thin skin. Maybe so. More on that in a minute. Not only does one skin switch off those aging dysfunctional cells, its products are packed with nourishing ingredients like antaroba oil, brew bronco, and moringa seed extract

to naturally boost collagen, reduce inflammation, and protect skin from environmental stressors, all while being free of the unnecessary irritants that can plague your skin, like sulfates and fragrances. So if you're ready to detox your routine and improve your skin health and look your best, just head over to Oneskin.co. That's O-N-E-S-K-I-N.CO,

and use code strict at checkout for an exclusive 15% off your first One Skin purchase. Make 2025 the year that you invest in habits that keep you and your skin healthier at the cellular level. I'm so excited to try OneSkin in 2025. As I have mentioned on this and other podcasts, I'm getting into my dotage, which means I think more about skincare

than perhaps I did when I was younger. And I want skincare that really works. And OneSkin believes the purpose of skincare is not just to improve how you look but to optimize your skin's biology at the cellular level so it's more resilient to the aging process. Founded and led by an all-woman team of skin longevity scientists, OneSkin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OS1 peptide, the first ingredient proven to help skin look, feel, and behave like its younger self.

Get 15% off your first purchase of OneSkin with code strict at oneskin.co. That's 15% off oneskin.co with code strict. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them, and please support SticksCurtney and tell them that we sent you. Invest in the health and longevity of your skin

with OneSkin, your future self will thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, please support. It's an old joke, but when a hardy man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Hello, and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the

legal culture that surrounds it. We are your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw. I'm Melissa Murray. And I'm Leah Litman. This episode is airing January 6th, four years to the day since rioters breached the Capitol in an effort to protest Congress certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. January 6 featured in many discussions about the future of American constitutional democracy and the 2024 presidential election. Of course, as a result of that election, Donald Trump, who spoke at the ellipsis event preceding the January 6 riot, during which he called on attendees to defend their country, will be returning

to the office of the presidency. So we thought we would use this pre-sitting episode in the new year to have a discussion about the office of the presidency. And we're going to orient our discussion around two fantastic books about the presidency, books that touch on questions of presidential power, the transition of power, how the presidency, books that touch on questions of presidential power, the transition of power,

how the presidency got to be what it is today, and how we've seen checks on the power of the president from sometimes unexpected quarters. And we are joined by the authors of those two fantastic books. First, we have Lindsay Churwinski, the author of Making the Presidency, John Adams and the Precedents that Forged the Republic. Dr. Trevinsky is an historian and the executive director

of the George Washington Presidential Library. Welcome to the pod, Lindsay. Thank you so much for having me. I'm really excited to be here. We are also delighted to be joined today by Corey Bretschneider, who is a professor of political science at Brown University, where he teaches constitutional law and political theory.

He's also taught at a number of law schools, so he really straddles the worlds of law and political science at Brown University, where he teaches constitutional law and political theory. He's also taught at a number of law schools, so he really straddles the worlds of law and political science. And Corey is the author of the excellent new book, The Presidents and the People, Five Leaders Who Threaten Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. Corey, welcome to the pod, and it's great to have you. Thanks.

Great to be here. I'm looking forward to the conversation. So, Lindsay, we want to start with a couple questions for you. Your book, Making the Presidency, generally outlines the challenges that John Adams faced as the second president, coming right after George Washington, who assumed, as you described,

this almost deity-like role in American politics and culture. How did that challenge shape the office of the presidency? Well, as you guys have talked about so often, so much of the presidency isn't written down. Article II of the Constitution, especially before all of the amendments and the statutes and laws that have been passed that govern the executive branch, was just incredibly short.

It had very few words. And that meant that much of what it meant to be president was really built on norm and precedent and custom. And that's pretty tricky when you only have one precedent or one person that you can follow, and that person is really unparalleled in stature. Because it means that if you diverge from that model, you're gonna be criticized.

But if you adhere to that model, you're also going to be criticized for falling short. And so whoever came second was really in this position of knowing that it was going to be terrible. They were going to be criticized. They were going to be unpopular with the American people. And that was a best case scenario. Worst case, they didn't know if the presidency

and all of the incredible powers that were granted to it in the Constitution would actually work if anyone else was in office. And so John Adams presidency was really a four year battle to try and ensure that the presidency worked for other people and to defend the character of the presidency as Washington had established. It's not written down in article two,

but how about article 12, right? That's what spells out all of the presidential powers. Comes later though. Okay. So Lindsay, we definitely do want to talk more about some of the themes that you just identified. But first, Corey, I want to bring you in. The title in some ways conveys the thesis of the book, but I want to just say maybe another word or two about it. And I am quite sure you never wanted to write a book that is quite this timely. But the basic

premise of the book, as I understand it, and it could not be more relevant, is essentially that there has always been a real authoritarian streak in the American presidency and that at a number of critical junctures in American history, there have been these key checks on that streak and on the presidency in general that have come from maybe unexpected places,

and particular from ordinary Americans sometimes using institutions but not typically themselves insiders to institutions. So feel free to, you know, correct if I mis-described any of that. But basically to come back to John Adams, you know, an important player in your story is John Adams. Can you talk a little bit about how Adams felt about the monarchy and how those views informed his understanding of the presidency that he was shaping, as Lindsay was just describing, you know, kind of in the footsteps of George Washington?

Yes. I mean, as you say, the thesis of the book is about the danger that the American presidency poses to democracy and to democratic self-government. And that's an idea that really was seen at the founding when Patrick Henry warned that if you have a criminal president, that they might even destroy the republic. And the thesis of the book is that we have come close to collapse, and we've certainly seen lots of threats to American democracy. But the thing that saves us in each of these cases is citizens, that those really who have their rights

threaten pushback, not through courts. Courts, in fact, often make things as they do now worse, but through subsequent presidents, through forming these democratic constitutional constituencies that get behind recovery presidents who put the norms back. So for me, Adam's threat, I mean it's interesting, right, because it's not that he's a bad person or a criminal in any way, but it's that he has a

philosophy of the presidency in particular that he gets from Montesquieu and scholars like Gordon Wood have pointed to this, it's a kind of well-known part of how he thinks about the presidency, that it really isn't part of democracy. It's not subject to popular sovereignty. It's about stability. And what that means when it comes to free speech is that as was true of the common law, that you really aren't free to criticize the president at will.

So when it comes time to the question of sedition and whether or not to pass a sedition act and to use it, it really coheres well with his philosophy that there's a limit on free speech when it comes to criticizing the president and the Sedition Act, which really makes it a crime to criticize the president of the United States. And we know now too that there were many more prosecutions than historians had thought at first and many of them are about criticism of the president, the kind of thing that you

would see on Saturday Night Live today and that we accept. And those criticisms, Adams thinks, they're out of bounds in the same way you can't criticize a monarch. So you mentioned Patrick Henry suggesting that a criminal president could destroy the country. Was he the original Cassandra? Because, of course, he also said, give me liberty

or give me death, which could also be about the court's rollback of civil rights and civil liberties. So sorry, side note. So Lindsay, the book covers the tenuous and uncertain nature of the president's role. And you specifically focus on Adam's relationship with his cabinet.

Some of the disputes between the president and the cabinet happened about matters that today we would treat as though they are obviously matters of exclusive or core presidential powers. But that wasn't necessarily the case at the founding or in the first couple of administrations. So one issue that you highlight is the dispute about the president's role with regard to the military.

And John Adams became president after George Washington, who had literally led the Continental Army. And no one questioned Washington's leadership over American forces as commander in chief. That wasn't the case for Adams, who did not have the same kind of military provenance. And indeed, Washington himself, when asked to serve as Lieutenant General of the Army

in the event of an invasion by France, asserted the power to determine the officer ranks rather than allowing the president as commander in chief to do so. So can you say a little bit more about that? How did we get to the point where it is natural and obvious that the president is the commander in chief and has that kind of purview over the armed forces? Yeah, that's a great question. And I commend you on picking two scholars who have completely divergent views of Adams. It'd be pretty, I'd love to get into this edition and act a little bit more, because I have

a very different interpretation. But in terms of the military, so this was one of the questions that was really a result of Washington's stature. And when Washington said something, it almost carried constitutional weight, because people could not really argue with him because of the risk of their own political reputation. So when Washington said he wanted Alexander Hamilton to be his number two in the army even though that prerogative would have gone to any other president or would have

gone to him when he was president, John Adams couldn't really do anything. Because if Washington threatened to resign, his presidency was going to be kneecapped. So it wasn't actually really until much later in the presidency when Washington was no longer alive and that threat was sort of not hanging over people that the power of commander in chief

started to actually crystallize. One of the really interesting exchanges that you highlight is, again, a challenge over the cabinet, where Adams confronted a dispute over foreign policy. Adams had a secretary of state pickering and other members of his cabinet. And you describe them as a group known as the Essex Junta. And it's literally trying to steer the country toward war

while Adams as president is trying to secure peace. What is generally, Lindsay, the flavor of these kinds of disputes, both on the domestic side and in foreign policy, between the president and his cabinet? Well, I think there was a real question about what was the role of the cabinet secretaries in the executive branch. Were they part of a shared committee

like we might think of as the British cabinet today, where you have a prime minister who's first among equals, but each has a constitutional role? Or are they really truly subordinate to the president? And with Washington, it hadn't been a question. But with Adams, especially with Secretary of State Pickering, who, by the way, was one of the all-time worst secretaries

of state, he really believed that he was always the smartest person in the room. And he knew better. And he believed he was entitled to pursue his own policy. And it wasn't until, spoiler alert, Adams eventually fired him that that sort of test came pushed to shove. He should have been on a faculty. He really should have.

He would have fit in quite well. So stepping back, you know, the book recounts all of this conflict between the president and his cabinet and how members of the cabinet thought it proper that they would be the ones to direct national and foreign affairs rather than the president. You know, they did not conceive of themselves as just executing the president's will or being an arm of the president, exercising the president's executive power. So asking you to kind of generalize from this, which I know is always a little bit tricky, what do you make of what this says

about the originalist bona fides of the unitary executive theory, which imagines that the president exercises and possesses all executive power and that all executive officers are merely the president's delegaties and must be subject to presidential control? Well, generally, the idea that the founders thought that is a sentence that is usually a red flag, that whatever anyone is going to say next is a load of crock,

because the founders rarely agreed on anything, except for one thing, which is that the president was not supposed to be king. And the president was supposed to be responsible to the rule of law and responsible for his actions, and after he left office was just an average citizen. And Washington and Adams were so meticulous about demonstrating this principle through really symbolic action. And the cabinet, while ultimately the resolution of Adams presidency was that indeed the cabinet is subordinate to the president, the president is not above Congress, the president is

not above the Supreme Court, and both Washington and Adams had a very healthy respect for the other branches and the checks that they were supposed to place on the president. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by bookshop.org. Guess what, friends? It's time to dive back into books and conquer your reading goals this year with bookshop.org. Whether you're searching for an incisive history that helps you make sense of this moment we're in or a novel that sleeps you away from this moment that we're in or the perfect gift for a loved one who has helped you get through this moment that you're in, Bookshop.org has you covered. When you purchase from Bookshop.org you're supporting over 2,000 local independent bookstores across the country

and ensuring that they continue to foster culture, curiosity, and a love of reading for generations to come. I love bookshop.org because they give great recommendations. These are recommendations that are actually driven by real readers who really read books, not by some algorithm. And I love that when I buy from bookshop.org, not only do I get the benefits of ordering straight

to my door, I still get to support my local bookstore. What could be better than that? And this year, as you get ready to double down on your reading goals, bookshop.org has a special offer. You can use code strict24 to get 10% off your next order at bookshop.org. That's strict24 at bookshop.org. Get going, get reading in 2025. Kori, let's bring you back into this conversation. And let me first ask if you can frame for us your view, and Lindsay will definitely give you a chance

to interject with yours, of the alien and sedition acts and just maybe the laws themselves and the foreign policy backdrop, and then we'll actually get into the prosecutions and responses. They are crafted in large part in response to a newspaper editor named Bech, who had criticized not just Adams, but also Adams' family, and that draws the ire of Adams' wife, Abigail Adams. And I think one of the most important things legally to think about is how they're crafted. It makes it a crime to criticize the President of the United States,

but it's not a crime under the way they're written to criticize the Vice President. Now, why would you craft a law like that? They're gerrymandered, essentially, as a shutdown of the opposition party This has all sorts of wild echoes of January 6th, right? It is illegal to criticize the president not illegal to criticize and other things the vice president Yeah, I mean the other echo is as you start to look into these cases one of the most interesting ones is a

prosecution attempted prosecution of an editor named Dwayne, who what he really does is just report on and publish a bill that would allow the Federalists to deny the certification of electoral vote. And that draws not just the ire of the Federalists, but an attempted prosecution. And there's a long story about that. So it really is not, I think a lot of times,

it's seen as a sort of benign moment. But the more that you emphasize not just free speech and the limits of it, but the right to dissent, the right to criticize a president is essential to democracy, the more you see it for what it was, which was a threat to the possible development of multi-party democracy,

including a right to criticize the president of the United States. Right. And just to say, in terms of the gerrymandering of the statute, if I'm right, it criminalized criticizing the president and Congress, both federalists controlled at the time, but allowed the criticism of the vice president, who at the time is Democratic, Republican, Jefferson. So it is really on its face an effort to stymie the development of inter-party competition as parties are kind of developing as, you know, a meaningful force in American politics and governance.

Okay, so then maybe before we get into the specifics of some of the prosecutions, Lindsay, how is your view of the kind of animating purpose of these statutes different? Well, I totally agree that they are completely political in their intention and their purpose and in their execution. Where I think we differ a little bit in our sort of assessment of it is the presidency was not the main governing force behind legislation in the 1790s. And Congress, especially the extreme wing

of the Federalist Party, was. And so the extreme Federalists were the ones that were pushing the legislation, were writing the legislation, were sort of whipping the votes for the legislation. And our old friend, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, was the one who was really responsible for overseeing the prosecutions. Which is not to say that Adams doesn't deserve blame for signing the legislation. I do think it's the dark mark on his presidency. If I may, there's one other piece that I think is really important. At the time, there weren't the sort of carve-outs of First Amendment protections that we honor today, including things like, you

know, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater or speech that is intended to provoke violence is not protected. And at the time, newspapers were calling for violence and there was violence in the streets, which is a really good lesson for us today, which is that you can have a real justifiable fear, but you can't allow it to be perverted for political reasons, which is what the arch-federalists did. So, Corey, what do you make of that characterization? On your telling, some of the editors and publishers that were targeted under the Alien Incidition Acts were critical players in ensuring that Adams did not

win the election of 1800. And weirdly, Thomas Jefferson, who was Adams's rival, quietly supported their efforts and their criticism of Adams. So is there more to this story? Well, I think Lindsay's correct. The right to dissent certainly is not established. I think what the right to free speech, according to the Federalists, all it really was,

was rights against prior restraint. And that idea, combined with the idea that the president was not an absolute monarch, but that there were analogies between the protection of the president and the protection of the monarch, leads to the idea that there isn't a right to dissent, a right to criticize the president. But the core cases of the prosecutions

and the ones, the most important ones that I should focus on are criticisms of the president. And of course the prosecutions come, as our structure of government presents from the executive branch. So what are they? They include the criticism of the president's, by Beish, of the president's family.

They include a criticism of him as a kind of two-faced, but used in a way that is offensive to today's ears, but still political, that he was a hermaphroditical figure, is what one of the editors says. And then the most important prosecution to my mind when we're thinking in the context of Trump is the prosecution of Dwayne, for what?

For basically un-foiling and doing what the press needs to do, which is reporting on an attempted self-coup that really, when you look at John Eastman's plan, in many ways it echoes that, the attempt to deny certification of electoral votes. So in sum, what the Sedition Act was, it's seen throughout American history by people like McCullough as kind of benign.

But what it really is is the shutdown, attempted shutdown of the opposition party. So I want to return to the efforts to modify the certification in a little bit just because of the parallels. But Lindsay, since you brought up the extant mob violence and political violence that was happening at the time and the relationship between that and the Sedition Acts, this is also part of a larger story that your book tells about mob violence, political violence,

and the precariousness of democracy in the early days in the United States. So the book tells a story from 1798, one of the events in the lead up to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, about a 10,000-person mob appearing in front of the president's house to protest, eventually dispersed. But people woke up the next morning

expecting to find people murdered in the city in flames and they didn't, you know, also a large mob assembled in the lead up to the certification of the 1800 election because of rumors that Federalists plan to manipulate the electoral college count. So can you say a little bit about this terrain and what, if any lessons it might have for us today? Well, I think, you know, these stories tend to get swept under the rug because they didn't turn into the horrific, violent episodes that we do tend to remember. And it's useful to us to not remember

how close our republic has come to almost falling apart at several different moments, especially if we're talking about a certain narrative about the Revolution of 1800, which was Jefferson's phrase to describe the election of 1800. But I think the main takeaway is that the American people have always been a fairly violent people and the 1790s especially was a very violent time. Newspaper editors were regularly pulled out of their offices and beaten in the streets. There were sort of roving bands of militias that were armed, that affiliated with certain

political parties and were often organized by ethnic group. And this clash outside the president's house occurred at a time when there weren't security gates. There was no secret service. There was no nothing to protect the president. And same is true with Congress in 1800 when a mob gathered outside of the in of in construction capital. There was no security force. There were no people to call up. And it was really a remarkable feat that it didn't turn into something much worse. But in particular, the mob in 1800 was threatening to kill anyone who took the presidency other

than Thomas Jefferson. And I think those echoes are just unbelievably extraordinary that we were there before. And what got us through was civic virtue, or people putting the Constitution above their own political interests, which is hopefully a good model for what we would ask for in the future.

And, Corey, can I ask whether I'm right to suspect that you might characterize some of these mobilizations in a different light, not denying that there was a threat of violence underlying them, but that they should be understood as at least in part demonstrations of popular opposition to threatened official repression or lawlessness, and that the mobs in some sense are the ones valorizing the Constitution,

or maybe not exclusively, but in part? I guess I'd say about it that violence and the threat of violence is often used throughout American history to justify the shutdown of speech. We've seen that often, you see, during war, for instance. And I think you just have to look at whether or not it was a justified kind of threat, at least in the context of the Sedition Act and Adams Party's actions, and what the editors were actually saying.

And the thing that they were prosecuted for wasn't actually threatening to kill the president or threats of violence. It was what we would think of as kind of benign, everyday, important criticism. And so what's so important about the moment is, and Lindsay, I thought it was exactly right to say this, the idea that the right to speech

is the right to dissent isn't yet established. I think we owe that to the editors who stood up to this Sedition Act, who used their trials as a way of advertising the notion that the right to dissent can be peaceful. So that's what I'd emphasize. The hero in many ways of that period of that cluster, the recovery comes from James Madison, who even during the War of 1812, when there is a real war on and has lots of calls for the shutdown of dissent and a new Sedition Act even, refuses to do so, in fact champions opposition editors

like Hanson who were subject to mob violence at that time. So violence, I think we just have to be a little careful about it because it's often used to justify the shutdown of civil liberties. And I think you're about to see that in the coming presidency for sure. I totally agree with the characterization of Madison as sort of like the the hero in this story, because what's really interesting is Jefferson during his presidency encouraged a lot of the states to actually to go after their own sedition cases, whereas Madison, I think, had a much more pure ideological commitment to free speech.

So I'm glad you mentioned that, Lindsay, because if James Madison was, in some ways, a hero, John Adams also did some good for the country in taking a longer-term institutional picture. There were interesting tidbits in your book that add, I think, more color to the images we have about certain figures in American history. So you've already mentioned Alexander Hamilton.

In the book, he's kind of depicted as this conniving, meddlesome guy who threatened the future of American democracy. He's one of the people who views the cabinet as the entity governing the nation. And when it appeared that the Federalists were going to lose an election, he proposes that New York change how it selects its electors

through a committee that would basically bypass a popular vote in a state when it looks like New York will select a pro-Republican slate, pretty close to a coup, as you note. And then Jefferson, also a complicated figure. He presses the resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts farther than James Madison would have, urging some role for state nullification, which, of course, then gets picked up in the lead up to the Civil War by the American Confederacy,

but then turns around and encourages Sedition Act prosecutions when he is president. And in the lead up to the uncertain election of 1800, he basically threatens that Republicans will use violence, depending on what the Federalist Party does in the lead up to the election and its aftermath. So I guess, what should we make of these richer, more nuanced, and highly complicated pictures of these key figures

in American constitutional history? Well, I love that you highlighted all of those different elements. And I think it's so important, because these figures are real and human and fallible. And they're not perfect. And sometimes they do things worth celebrating. And sometimes they do things that make us really

want to cringe or hide under the table, because they come so close to throwing away this project that they had worked so hard and in some cases literally bled for. But you know I think what I take away from certain of these moments especially the ones you know with James Madison where he's sort of tempering things and and Jefferson I do actually give him credit at the end of the book for his embrace of unity in his inaugural address, is they often recognize when they come too close to the brink and they try and step back and fix it.

And so they recognize where things have maybe almost gone very badly and try and rectify that situation. And so, you know, Jefferson is the first to say, we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists, and now we expect most presidents to try and issue a unifying call in that way. But it was revolutionary in 1800 when he was the first to do so.

Can I just ask a quick follow up, which is, do you have any kind of speculation about what makes them realize they might be going too far, just so we can maybe internalize that and apply it in a given situation. I can't imagine why you would be asking. Yeah, you know, I think well with with Jefferson, what I think was for him was the realization point was by the time Congress actually decided on him as the third president, because of course, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, he was about two and a half weeks away from his inauguration. And had Congress gotten to the House of Representatives, he was about two and a half weeks away from his inauguration.

And had Congress gotten to the inauguration date and there hadn't been a resolution, I genuinely don't know what would have happened. And I think that they didn't either. I think that they suspected there would be armed force involved. And then you're looking at a situation that looks perilously close to the French Revolution. And for all that he kind of tried to put blinkers on about the French Revolution, I do think they recognized that the Constitution and the Republic was fragile because they had just built it. You know, we tend to, I think, think that, oh, well, of course it's going to survive. It's been around for almost 250 years. We'll be fine. They did not think that. And so I

think that, you know, sort of reality check about the fragileness of this institution was so essential to them being able to do the right thing. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Fatty15. How do I feel about aging? Not great, but not terrible either. I basically decided that I am going to try and keep it right and tight as long as possible, which means that I really need help with some of the hardest parts of aging, like poor sleep, lack

of energy, stiff joints, or anything else. Those are the real concerns that keep me up at night, literally keep me up at night. And those are the things that I want my anti-aging regime to affect and deal with, which is why I'm so excited to share with you guys the product C15 from Fatty15. This is the first essential fatty acid to be discovered in more than 90 years, and it's an incredible scientific breakthrough to support your long-term health and wellness,

and you guessed it, aging and longevity. Fatty15 co-founder Dr. Stephanie Van Watson discovered the benefits of C15 while working with the US Navy to continually improve the health and welfare of aging dolphins. Based on over 100 studies, we know now that C15 strengthens our cells

and is a key longevity enhancing nutrient, which helps to slow biological aging at the cellular level. In fact, when our cells don't have enough C15, they can become fragile and age faster. And when our cells age, our bodies age too. Fatty 15 repairs age-related damage to cells, protects them from future breakdown, and activates pathways in the body that

help regulate our sleep, mood, and natural repair mechanisms that support our overall health. This functionality leads to so many other exciting benefits now and as we get older. In fact, 72% of Fatty15 customers report seeing or feeling benefits within 16 weeks, including improved metabolic, liver and heart health, smoother functioning joints, deeper sleep – yes please – or healthier hair, skin, and nails, also yes please. Fatty15 is a science-backed, award-winning vegan patented 100% pure C15 supplement. It's vegan-friendly, free of flavors, fillers, allergens, or preservatives, and Fatty15 has

three times more cellular benefits than omega-3 or fish oil. By replenishing our cells with the essential C15 nutrient, Fatty15 effectively repair cells and restores our long-term health. Fatty15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help you live healthier and longer. You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com slash strict

and using the code strict at checkout. com slash strict and using the code strict at checkout. You also note that Adams was a particularly good voice to have in this moment because despite his many flaws as a man and as a president, one thing that he did repeatedly was to prioritize country and again, a fledgling country, ahead of his own personal interests. So you note his pardoning of individuals who had been convicted of treason

when he had doubts about how the court was interpreting and defining the term treason. And he did this even where his party might seek political retribution against political opponents using these statutes. He pursued peace with France, even though there were those in his party who were very hawkish on the question of war with France.

And again, as you've noted, he most profoundly rose to the occasion in this transition of power. He's the first president to lose reelection, yet he concedes gracefully and is willing to cede power to Thomas Jefferson, even though Jefferson's own election is one that gets thrown to the House of Representatives and isn't a clear-cut electoral victory in the way

that we might think of it. But he accepts this. Can you say more about just how he was truly remarkable for this moment? And perhaps we haven't appreciated in the fullness of history what made him a particularly good leader for these times that were marked, as you say, by incredible fragility.

Absolutely. Well, in a lot of ways, I think he was the ideal person for this moment because he was willing to be un ways, I think he was sort of the ideal person for this moment because he was willing to be unpopular if he thought he was doing what was right. And he had first demonstrated that in the 1770s when he represented the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.

And so it takes a sort of certain perverse satisfaction, like a willingness to kind of stick it to your own party if you think you are doing the virtuous thing. And he did that at several points, as you said, throughout his presidency. Or it means more public defenders as presidents, other possible lessons. Ah.

That's an excellent. This is big associate dean energy, I'm not going to lie. But I think most importantly, when I came to the election and then the transition of 1800 to 1801, he had such a long-term view because his entire life project had been creating this experiment. And so he was willing to practice restraint. He said he would have nothing to do with a lot of the shenanigans that his fellow Federalists

were up to. He wouldn't participate in an attempt to basically steal the election. He told Jefferson he believed he was the rightful winner, so he acknowledged the results of the election. He then, once it was clear Jefferson was going to win, was quite instrumental in making his cabinet participate in what we would consider to be sort of briefings and the required, or what we would hope to be required,

transition activities long before it was mandated by law. And lastly, as you said, he lost and he went home. And this was the age of Napoleon. Napoleon did not go home. Napoleon came back from islands in the middle of nowhere. And he often gets a bad rap for leaving before the inauguration. But that tradition wasn't established for another four and a half decades. And he genuinely believed, I think, that his

presence would be a distraction and would undermine that turning of the page. And so for me, losing and going home was a radical thing to do. Linsy, before we leave the topic of John Adams, is there anything you want to add about the role of Abigail Adams in this kind of early shaping of the office of the presidency? She's obviously a very significant figure. Abigail is, I think, the most fun part of this book. She is such a savvy political observer and can totally see exactly what was happening and what sort of machinations everyone was up to. She had a very good sense of someone's character and she could write a cutting turn of phrase like almost no one else. She was by far his most

important advisor. Occasionally that did lead him wrong, especially around the Alien and Sedition Acts. But largely I think she encouraged him to pursue what was best for the good of the nation and lent him really essential support when it came to things like foreign policy and the transition. And what I love about her is that she was recognized as this political thinker by everyone at the time. So it wasn't just him respecting and appreciating her. She was very much understood to be this person. So, Corey, if we could pivot from the Adams presidency,

which apparently, like so many other great presidencies, was supported by a really indispensable woman who got very little credit. Let's pivot to modern day presidential history. There's a theme in your book about presidents who threaten the constitutional order or core constitutional values and these ordinary individuals who respond and stand up to them and sometimes best those presidents.

I would really love to hear about your account of the conflict between James Buchanan, that famous bachelor president who probably was terrible because he didn't have a great woman. He was elected president in 1856, and he led the country into civil war. And the individual who stepped up and really challenged him to be a better president, he failed on many occasions,

but to be a better president was Frederick Douglass. So can you say a little bit more about the relationship between Buchanan and Douglass? Yeah, it's a moment in the same way that the editors, I think, really deserve credit for fighting back against the Sedition Act and establishing the idea, not just that there's some general right to free speech, but a really a right to dissent that includes the right to be free from criminal punishment for our opinions.

The contribution to American democracy that Frederick Douglass made, I think, is just unparalleled that he's Buchanan is pretending to be a George Washington figure, that he's neutral when it comes to the Dred Scott case in particular, which as your listeners know, essentially denied Black Americans nationally any rights under the federal Constitution. And at the time, there's a question, how do you fight back against Dred Scott? And the most common view of abolition is led by the Garrisonian wing that says, look, this is evidence that the entire Constitution just has to be trashed, that it's really a pact with the devil,

that it's inherently evil. And Douglass is the one who says, no, it's not the problem of Dred Scott. And I think this resonates in particular with this podcast, that it's really the American Constitution's not the problem, it's these false interpretations of it. And that the key is to really reclaim the constitution

as against the Dred Scott court, which by the way Buchanan turns out, as Douglas suspected, to have lobbied for this evil decision. And the way to fight back is to look for its principles, the declaration, the idea that for instance as Douglas often Says that the preamble says we the people not we the white people He talks about the ban on the corruption of blood that you can inherit the punishments of parents. What is that? He says but an anti-slavery principle

so he really teaches America how to read this document as as one of democratic principles and meaning principles that guarantee a right of equal citizenship in a multiracial democracy. And interestingly, Douglas's interest in the Declaration of Independence as an elaboration of what the Constitution means actually gets worked into the 14th Amendment and is part of that particular provision of the Constitution. Did Douglas have a similar kind of relationship

with the next three presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant? I think there is a parallel that you get a kind of pattern of crisis in the Buchanan presidency with the combination of Buchanan secretly teaming up with the court, and the idea that this constituency that's really led by Douglas prevails upon subsequent presidents

to recover a democratic idea of the Constitution. So in Lincoln, I really think Douglas teaches Lincoln how to read the Constitution. Lincoln thinks, for instance, that the Fugitive Slave Act has to be enforced, that Dred Scott is wrong, but that it has to be recognized, at least in its narrow holding.

And Douglas All-Along is the one that's saying, and also Lincoln is saying the war is not about slavery. And Douglas All-Along is pushing back, saying, no, we the people means this war has to be a recovery of the basic human dignity of the enslaved. That the declaration isn't just some abstract thing, but that it is an anti-slavery principle. Lincoln doesn't have that early in his presidency,

although he comes to it by his last speech and by Gettysburg. And so the story I tell really is of Douglas teaching Lincoln how to read the Constitution. The real hero of that period is Ulysses Grant, who really makes good on Douglas's commitment to equal citizenship, not just in supporting the 15th Amendment,

but in supporting the Enforcement Act. The shutdown of more than 1,000 white terrorists throughout America who were trying to interfere with the basic rights of black Americans, including the right to free speech. So let's talk briefly about Woodrow Wilson, who you describe as wholly committed to a constitutional vision predicated on white supremacy

and fundamentally hostile to multiracial democracy. Once again, hmm, does this sound familiar? So Wilson refused to prosecute lynchings. He screened birth of a nation in the White House and resegregated the federal workforce. Your discussion of Wilson focuses on two characters who spent their lives battling in various ways,

Wilson's modernized version of white supremacy. And those two characters are Ida B. Wells and William Monroe Trotter. Could you tell us about them? Sure. I went into the archives in Princeton and really wanted to know, and I think listeners will find this part interesting,

what was Wilson saying in all these classes about constitutional law? We know he showed birth of a nation in the White House. And I wanted to know more about what the philosophy here was. And what you find there is that really it is a deep philosophical commitment, not just to white supremacy, that's not new, but to the combination of nationalism and white supremacy.

And so for Wilson, really, unlike many of the other presidents, many of the framers, he thinks of the president as the first among equals and devoted to a kind of German ideal of national efficiency. Now, what's in what's in the way better in the original German? Exactly. You can't make this stuff up. What sounds to him like what is the thing that he thinks gets in the way of national efficiency? It's what he calls friction.

And friction is sort of the enemy of the thing that the president is supposed to pursue. Now what does he mean by friction? He means integration. So when he's confronted in the White House by Ida B. Wells and William Monroe Trotter, he says you're creating friction. You're advocating for friction. All I'm trying to do is, is reduce it. Stop existing. Exactly. And so this is a deep commitment. You see it in his textbook,

you see it in his lectures, and of course you see it in his actions. He resegregates the federal government. And that's the thing that Ida B. Wells and Trotter are calling him out for. And in real time they don't prevail. But the point of my book is they create an agenda, a legacy, that ultimately other citizens will pick up later in the 20th century. And the book I will just commend to readers,

Corey really did go deep into the archives at Princeton. And I think the book offers a very unsparing account of Wilson, who I think is often portrayed as a more complicated figure. And to some degree, you say it's really not that complicated if you've actually gone back and read decades of his lecture notes as you did. There was also a note in the book that I did not, other listeners might have known this, I either didn't know or hadn't remembered, that Wilson actually won a previously

unprecedented percentage of the black vote for a Democrat. Right at the time, the Republicans are the party of civil rights and racial equality. So he won something like 30% of the black vote. Obviously, this is in it. This is pre voting rights act. So obviously, those numbers are skewed. But all this was on kind of vague promises of civil rights enforcement that were obviously not something he was ever going to deliver on. And since we're noting historical parallels, thinking of civil rights for disenfranchised southerners. Kate is just how you frame the civil rights. He was just he was vague enough that people could hear what they wanted and his promises is the point I'm making. Yeah, he was on the pioneering end of the new minority, the conservative white men from the south. And it is true that Trotter,

you know, is duped in the beginning. That at one point Trotter supports him. And that's part of the story of the book is the realization that this sort of supposed hero, who stands for international democracy is somebody who really does in a fundamental way threaten the possibility of recovery, not just of recovery, but that he's making things so much worse

because of the nationalism it's the growing the federal government at the same time is advocating for segregation and as the federal government is growing he is segregated and so he's really spreading these ideas and it's so much worse i mean i talk about in his speeches on his use of the term hyphenate to talk about disloyal amer, by which he means black Americans, Italian Americans, and really in the midst of red summer, stoking violence when a president's obligation should be to quell it. Strict Student is brought to you by Babel. You say you want to learn a new language

and you say it every year, but in fact, few of us actually commit to doing it. Well, that can change right now, because Babbel makes it easy for you to learn a new language in less time than you think. This year, speak like a whole new you with Babbel, the language learning app that gets you talking. Learning a new language is the pathway

to discovering new cultures, so why not embark on learning something new? Babbel's quick 10-minute lessons, handcrafted by over 200 language experts, get you to begin speaking your new language in three weeks or at whatever pace you choose. And because conversing is the key to really understanding each other in new languages,

Babbel is designed using practical real-world conversations. You can spend months with private teachers. That's the old way of learning languages. And nothing screams tourists, like holding a phone translation app up to your face all day. Babbel's tips and tools are inspired by the real life stuff that you actually need when communicating. With a focus on conversation, you'll

be ready to get up and go and to talk whenever you get there. When I was in high school in Florida, one of the things that we had to do was learn a foreign language. So I chose Spanish. And I learned pretty decent Spanish. But when I went to Spain in my junior year of high school, I realized that although I knew Spanish in an academic sense,

I didn't really know Spanish in a way that could make it feel fluent and conversational and I could blend in well with the people in the town where I was staying. I would have loved to have Babel's speech recognition technology at hand to help me improve my pronunciation and accent as well as the idiomatic aspects of the language. And if you need proof that Babel gets you talking, there are studies from Yale, Michigan State, and other leading universities that continue to prove that Babbel actually works.

One study found that using Babbel for 15 hours is equivalent to a full semester at college. With over 16 million subscriptions sold, Babbel's 14 award-winning language courses are backed by a 20-day money-back guarantee. Let's get more of you talking in a new language. Babbel is gifting our listeners 60% off subscriptions at babbel.com slash strict. Get up to 60% off at babbel.com slash strict. Spelled B-A-B-B-E-L.com slash strict. Babbel.com slash strict. Rules and restrictions may apply. Okay, so we've talked so far, Cory, largely about kind of the presidential adversaries or antagonists who are journalists and activists, but I want to pivot now to the Nixon part of your book because the Watergate grand jury is of kind of a different character.

And so as we start to move the conversation closer to the present day, what role in your telling did the Watergate grand jury play in the fall of President Richard Nixon? I was honored to talk to two of the living grand jurors on the phone during COVID. Incredible to get these people on the phone, including Ethel Peoples, who had been a low income worker who found herself in a position where she was in a position to vote whether or not to indict the president of the United States. Now, of course, they didn't carry through that indictment, but there was a straw poll in which they made the decision.

And as one of the jurors, Elaine Edlin, puts it, many of them raised two hands to emphasize how much they saw enough evidence that they wanted to indict Nixon. Now why didn't they do it? Ultimately, Leon Jaworski, who of course is often portrayed as a hero, prevails on them to make a deal essentially, which is that they'll pass on the information that they've gathered to Congress for impeachment, that's known as the roadmap.

They'll go to court to get the remaining tapes, which they do, that's US versus Nixon. And Philip Lacovara argues that case, who gave me a lot of the details for this chapter, in addition to the grandeur and the information that's come from FOIA requests. But the most important part of the deal is that after he resigns, and no one doubted, by the way,

that it was constitutional to do this, they would indict the president, then former president of the United States. So when that happens, why doesn't it happen? Well, we know that there was a meeting between Jaworski and Haig, and soon after the pardon follows. And my view, unlike many, is that the pardon was not a good thing for American democracy. It hid the extent of the crime. That's so weird, because Brett Kavanaugh informed us that the country just celebrates every year

the day for pardon Nixon. This is practically a national holiday. Yeah, and if you want to show that somehow this crazy immunity case, which is made up out of thin air, is a good thing, you would want to celebrate this pardon. But I'll note, and as Kate's noted too, and I believe in the New York Times, the pardon assumed and said

that former presidents were not immune. So nobody was thinking that there was immunity for Nixon once he left office. And that was the deal that was made. They're also convinced not to indict with a really horrific argument by Jaworski. He says, if you indict him now, he's going to surround the White House and have a self-coup, Nixon.

And that, among other possibilities, including the fact that he might have immunity as a sitting president, convinces these grand jurors to at least temporarily back off. And to my mind, it was the wrong decision. We really should have seen Nixon indicted and prosecuted like any other person, and we would have had a very different relationship to the presidency. And so unlike the other episodes- Jaworski's argument sounds a lot like Sam Alito during the oral arguments in Trump vs. the United States, in which he speculated that the availability of criminal liability against presidents would lead presidents to do coups and refuse to leave office.

Right, it's a total twisted logic that Alito and others have. And it's the idea that we would defer to a president who might engage in a coup. I mean, I find that horrendous. It's exactly the opposite lesson that we should be drawing. Well, speaking of all of that, Lindsley, let's bring you back in.

We are standing at the precipice of Donald Trump's second inauguration. This is only the second time in the history of the United States that a president will have served two non-consecutive terms. The first was Grover Cleveland. Never thought we would be doing the Grover Cleveland again, but here we are. Your book really focuses on Adams's role

in instantiating a set of norms around the peaceful transition of power, even in circumstances where there are really pitched political battles over elections and the direction of American democracy. Ultimately, Donald Trump, the first time around in 2020, peacefully departed after a little cuckoo, kachoo, he ultimately left and allowed Joe Biden to be inaugurated, although he very clearly declined

to attend that inauguration, a departure from an established norm. Now he's returning to power, and he is considerably more grieved and far more prepared than he might have been in his first term. Are there any lessons from the history that you've canvassed for this book that might guide us as we prepare for Trump 2.0?

Wow, that's a good question. Well, I think one of the lessons is, and this isn't necessarily from the book, but I think it's probably something that both Cory and I can talk to you about work in general on the presidency, is that presidents learn. Presidents learn how the executive system

works. They get better at being president or at least more effective at being president. We might not all agree. Important distinction. They get more effective at being president. We might not all agree. Important distinction. They get more effective, they get better at working the system as they go along. And I don't think that Trump is gonna be

any different from that. In fact, we saw even in just his first term, the difference between year one and year four was significant. So I think that's one lesson. Are you saying we finally are going to get infrastructure week in the second Trump term? I would never's one lesson. Are you saying we finally are going to get infrastructure week in the second Trump term? I would never make that promise.

I'll hold out. If by infrastructure week you mean the rescission of the 14th Amendment, then correct, that is what will happen. Yeah, it is amazing how the 14th Amendment is all of a sudden just a figment of some people's imagination. Discretionary. Yes, exactly.

Discretionary. I think exactly. Discretionary. I think a couple of the lessons are at moments when things were extremely tense, the people who made a difference aren't necessarily the names that we would remember today. Sometimes they're just congressmen who were in their 30s and early 40s who are making compromises across party lines

to try and come up with a solution. And so what that tells to me is that people should not feel defeated by a threat because I think it is possible for individuals to make a difference. Corey's work certainly attests to that as well. For me, the big lesson that I took from this book was that institutions are really easy to tear down. They're really hard to build back up. And so no matter how flawed an institution is, it's worth trying to improve it and defend it as opposed to trying to build

something new from scratch, because they knew how hard that was to do and they didn't want to do it again. And that I think is a useful lesson. Yeah, I mean, just say something. I've had so many thoughts about kind of institutions and people who sometimes have thought of themselves as institutionalists and are sort of really questioning whether that's something that a label that is worth kind of retaining. And I think being critical minded about institutions right now is actually really, really important. But I also think that institutions and norms, which are related but not identical, in some ways like that's all the Constitution is.

And I don't know if it's possible to say, well, we are going to have to abandon institutions because they won't save us without also abandoning the Constitution. And maybe, you know, you want to not align yourself with sort of the Frederick Douglass wing of the Constitution actually is worth fighting for and saving, and that's a reasonable position. But I am having a hard time figuring out

how to distance ourselves fully from institutions without essentially also relinquishing the Constitution. But obviously, there's more to say there. But maybe, Cory, you know, some general thoughts from you. distance ourselves fully from institutions without essentially also relinquishing the Constitution. But obviously there's more to say there. But maybe, Corey, some general thoughts from you. I think the conversation has made clear you argue throughout the book that carefully reading history does suggest that what we think of as these more traditional institutional checks on the president, impeachment, or the Supreme Court say haven't been particularly effective,

but much more effective have been the responses of ordinary citizens, journalists, activists, members of grand juries. So what lessons does all of that hold for the period we are entering upon? I mean, I think the lesson of the current moment, which has you say, is that the Supreme Court is not going to save us in this moment. And we have a president who is basically proposed on day one to violate the most explicit part of the text of the 14th Amendment, of the Constitution as a whole, the guarantee of birthright citizenship.

So given that the institutions are likely not going to be, meaning the court, the presidency, of course, and Congress, which is controlled by the president's party, are not going to be what saves us. Why not abandon the Constitution? And I think my thought in the book is that it's because when you really look at American history, the real heroes are citizens who read the Constitution for themselves and used it to claim their own rights against and standing up to authoritarian presidents or presidents

with authoritarian ambitions. And they've done that not by litigating. You know, even Brown, I say, is not as important in the recovery from Wilson as the Truman Committee and the 1964 Civil Rights Act in particular, the thing that really did even more than Brown to desegregate America's schools. Those were things that were achieved by citizens, famously in some cases and less famously in others, standing up to authoritarianism and prevailing

on subsequent presidents to recover. So it's so essential in this moment that we claim the Constitution for ourselves. And we claim a democratic as opposed to an authoritarian Constitution. Lindsay Churwinski and Corey Bretschneider, thank you so much for writing illuminating rich books and for a conversation that, while of course it

is bleak and concerning in some respects, also has notes of optimism and how to think about the next four years as we are thinking about how our constitution and our democracy is going to function under this administration. So thank you both. Thank you so much for having us. I really appreciate the conversation. Thanks so much. Really enjoyed it. And we should reiterate that their books are Making the Presidency, John Adams and the

Precedents that Forged the Republic, and The Presidents and the People, Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and The Citizens Who and the People, five leaders who threatened democracy and the citizens who fought to defend it. One last thing before we go. Here's a YouTube exclusive show I'm loving this week. It's called This Fucking Guy from Hysteria. In the show, they choose one disaster of a person and uncover literally everything in their dark and twisted past.

They just did a three-part series on Donald Trump, and this week they're taking on the corporate titan, the retail mogul, the man behind the mask, Jeff Bezos. But that's not all cricket has to offer. Tommy Vitor and Brian Tyler Cohen have a series together called Liberal Tears, that's T-I-E-R-S, not T-E-A-R-S, where they rank everything political under the sun and whoever loses the draft gets appropriately humiliating punishment. It's pretty entertaining. There's a ton of exclusive content waiting for you on YouTube. Check out the full lineup at crooked.com slash videos.

Strik Strigni is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, me Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw. We are produced and edited by Melody Rowell. And Michael Gullsmith is our associate producer. We get audio support from Kyle Segland and Charlotte Landez. And music is by Eddie Cooper. We get production support from Madeline Herringer and Ari Schwartz. And Matt DeGroote is our head of production. We are very grateful for our digital team, Phoebe Bradford

and Joe Matuski, who gets all of this into all the different platforms that you look at. And if you are interested in other platforms, you can subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube, where you can catch full episodes of Us in the Flesh. Find us at youtube.com at Strict Scrutiny podcast. And if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode.

And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.