Is That Even Constitutional? cover art

Is That Even Constitutional?

Is That Even Constitutional?

By: Sadena Thevarajah and Ken Thomas
Listen for free

About this listen

It's never been a better time to understand the U.S. Constitution: what it allows, what it prohibits, and what is in the grey area. Join host Sadena Thevarajah and constitutional scholar Ken Thomas in conversation as they scrutinize recent federal administration actions, to help us better see our country's founding document for the living document that it is.

© 2026 Is That Even Constitutional?
Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • Project 2026: Stopping Dangerous Sales of Firearms
    Jan 7 2026

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 47,000 people died of gun-related injuries in the United States in 2023. Despite this litany of violence, gun control in the United States has become far more difficult. In 2008, the Supreme Court drastically reinterpreted the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller. Since then, the Court has enthusiastically expanded this newly discovered doctrine to strike down gun regulations. Congress, however, still has the ability hold gun sellers and manufacturers liable for gun violence.

    Show More Show Less
    19 mins
  • Project 2026: Let shareholders limit corporate speech
    Dec 29 2025

    In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court took individual free speech rights and added an ahistorical addition - giving these rights to corporations. The idea that such a fundamental right should be extended to corporations is nonsensical. Speech is not a property right and there is no reasonable argument that corporate speech is a reflection of the speech of its shareholder. Congress, however, can pass a law prohibiting corporations from funding political speech without the permission of their shareholders.

    Show More Show Less
    21 mins
  • Project 2026: The Right to Reproductive Decision-Making
    Dec 17 2025

    In 1965, the Supreme Court held in Griswold v. Connecticut that the Constitution protected the right of families to use contraception. In 1973, the Court in Roe v. Wade extended this right to decisions to terminate a pregnancy. When Roe was overturned fifty years later in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this not only affected abortion rights but threatened access to contraceptives and fertility treatments. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, explicitly called for the Supreme Court to overturn Griswold and remove the remaining constitutional protections for reproductive decisions. Federal legislation could be passed, however, to protect contraception and restore protections for abortion.

    Show More Show Less
    18 mins
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.