meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
We the People

The history and meaning of the Establishment Clause

We the People

National Constitution Center

History, News Commentary, News

4.61K Ratings

🗓️ 16 December 2015

⏱️ 49 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In honor of the holiday season, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Marci Hamilton of the Cardozo School of Law debate the history and contemporary application of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome to We the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.

0:08.0

The National Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress to disseminate

0:14.0

information about the US Constitution on a non-partisan basis. And today it's

0:19.2

We The People Holiday Edition in a season of many religious celebrations,

0:23.2

complete with public expressions of faith,

0:25.3

we explore the history and contemporary applications

0:28.5

of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause,

0:31.0

which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

0:37.0

Joining me to discuss this fascinating question are two of the nation's leading constitutional scholars on the establishment clause.

0:45.0

And as icing on the cake, both of them wrote about the establishment clause for the National

0:50.2

Constitution Center's wonderful new

0:53.4

Constitution, which I want you to check out online

0:56.3

at Constitution Center.org.

0:58.6

Michael McConnell is the Richard and Francis Mallory

1:01.0

professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. and Coyle Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law,

1:14.1

and Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania

1:16.9

in the Fox Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.

1:21.5

Michael, Marcy, thank you so much for being here.

1:24.0

It's a pleasure.

1:25.0

Thanks for having me.

1:27.0

Michael, let's begin with your and Marcy wonderful contribution to the interactive Constitution, you wrote a common statement about

1:35.4

what you both agreed that it was originally intended to achieve, and you talked about what virtually all jurists agree that would violate the

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from National Constitution Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of National Constitution Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.