Judges and Juries, Part 2 | America's Written Constitution with Akhil Reed Amar

This lecture provides a rigorous and insightful analysis of judicial review from an originalist perspective. Akhil Reed Amar, a distinguished constitutional scholar, presents a well-structured argument that distinguishes the principle of judicial review from its scale. He effectively uses textual evidence and historical context to support his claims, such as the unspecified size of the Supreme Court and the lack of a written opinion requirement, to demonstrate that the founders envisioned a more limited role for the judiciary. The lecture’s strength lies in its nuanced discussion of how judicial power expanded over time, attributing this to institutional changes and political factors rather than a simple original intent. Amar’s comparison of judicial review with executive and legislative review is particularly illuminating, showing that the Constitution provides multiple checks on legislative power. The analysis of Marbury v. Madison is precise, clarifying that the case struck down a provision that expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction, a technical matter. The lecture also touches on the malapportionment of the Court due to the three-fifths clause, leading to the Dred Scott decision, which adds a critical historical dimension. While the lecture is primarily a lecture rather than a peer-reviewed article, it is based on Amar’s extensive scholarship and is delivered with clarity and authority. The content is highly reliable, though it reflects a particular interpretive framework (originalism). The lecture does not engage with opposing viewpoints in depth, but it is not intended as a debate. Overall, this is an excellent educational resource for understanding the foundations and evolution of judicial review in the United States.

The title accurately reflects the content, which focuses on the role of judges and juries in the constitutional framework.

9/10

Lecture by a renowned constitutional scholar, based on originalist textual analysis and historical evidence. The argument is structured, references primary sources (Constitution, Federalist Papers, Marbury v. Madison), and is presented with academic rigor. Minor caveat: no external sources cited beyond the course materials.

• 00:00What judicial review is, and who else exercises it
• 03:48The two-step argument for the practice
• 05:50How modest a version the founders imagined
• 08:24An unspecified size, and a malapportioned Court
• 09:56Six justices, and no required written opinions
• 11:59What Marbury v. Madison actually struck down
• 15:32Why the judiciary grew so much more powerful
• 21:17Juries as the lower house of Article III
• 24:20John Marshall, and the succession to Taney

• America's Written Constitution - Yale Online — Course page for the lecture series.
• America's Written Constitution - Coursera — Online course version of the lecture series.
• America's Written Constitution - YouTube Playlist — Playlist containing the full lecture series.

• Federalist No. 78 — Hamilton's argument for judicial review aligns with Amar's two-step reasoning.

• The Constitution of the United States