Constitution Breakdown #3: Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Speaker 1 What does it mean to live a rich life?

Speaker 2 It means brave first leaps, tearful goodbyes,

Speaker 1 and everything in between.

Speaker 1 With over 100 years' experience navigating the ups and downs of the market and of life, your Edward Jones financial advisor will be there to help you move ahead with confidence.

Speaker 1 Because with all you've done to find your rich, we'll do all we can to help you keep enjoying it. Edward Jones, member SIPC.

Speaker 3 This episode is brought to you by PNC Bank. Some people think podcasts about architecture are boring.

Speaker 3 Yeah, well, sometimes the details are boring, but that's what creates stable foundations and construction that lasts. And that's something that everyone wants.
It's like banking with PNC.

Speaker 3 It might seem boring to save, plan, and make calculated decisions with your bank, but keeping your money boring is what helps you live a happily, fulfilled life.

Speaker 3 PNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. PNC Bank National Association, member FDIC.

Speaker 3 This is the 99% invisible breakdown of the Constitution. I'm Roman Mars.

Speaker 2 And I'm Elizabeth Joe.

Speaker 3 Today, we are finishing up our discussion of Article 1, which established the legislative branch of the federal government.

Speaker 3 Our special guest for this episode is Elizabeth Warren, the senior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. But first, Elizabeth Joe and I are going to spend some more time going through Article 1.

Speaker 3 There is so much to cover in this part of the Constitution.

Speaker 3 Last time, we talked about the first seven sections, which describe the houses of Congress, who gets to be a member of the House and the Senate, how bills become federal law, and which chamber plays which role in the process of impeachment.

Speaker 3 And in this episode, we're going to focus more on the back half of Article 1, which describes the powers of Congress. So, where do you want to start?

Speaker 2 All right. Well, I think a useful way to think about the remainder of Article 1 is this.

Speaker 2 We can talk about what Congress can do, what Congress is prohibited from doing, and then what the states are prohibited from doing.

Speaker 2 And I thought we'd also talk about two powers of Congress that are important but non-obvious even after we talk about Article I. Okay.
All right, let's do it.

Speaker 2 So the remainder of Article I begins with Section 8. And so Section 8 is very important because it is the Constitution explicitly providing Congress with specific legislative powers.

Speaker 2 And now, one thing to keep in mind, Roman, is that our Constitution isn't the first one that we have. That title belongs to the Articles of Confederation.

Speaker 2 And the Articles of Confederation imagined a very different structure. There was no federal judiciary, no executive.
But there was a Confederation Congress, which did have some familiar powers.

Speaker 2 It could wage war, it could coin money, and it could set up post offices.

Speaker 2 But importantly, the Confederation Congress had no ability to impose taxes and no ability to regulate commerce at a national level. So those two missing powers alone are some pretty major limitations.

Speaker 2 You can't raise revenue for the federal government, and you can't treat the entire country as one regulated national economy.

Speaker 2 So our present Constitution is a reaction both to what worked and what didn't work in the Articles of Confederation.

Speaker 3 So So, what are some of the things that Congress can now do?

Speaker 2 Well, just like with the Articles of Confederation, it can declare war, coin money, and set up post offices.

Speaker 2 Now, it can protect and regulate intellectual property, including patents and copyrights.

Speaker 2 But maybe most importantly, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Yeah.
Yeah, that's right. So, the power as described doesn't say too much.

Speaker 2 Congress has the ability to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among several states and with the Indian tribes.

Speaker 2 But there are two developments that can help us understand why the Commerce Clause is so important today.

Speaker 2 So the easy one is that today, unlike in 1787, say, everything is touched by interstate commerce, right?

Speaker 2 I mean, the fact that most of our goods are made somewhere else, in fact, not just within the United States, but around the world, means that it's pretty easy for Congress to say, we want to regulate something because it has some relationship to interstate commerce.

Speaker 2 So that's made it a lot different and easy for Congress just because of the way the world has changed.

Speaker 3 Yeah, yeah. And as we've seen over the years of doing this show,

Speaker 3 regulating interstate commerce becomes the pretense for all kinds of other regulation when it comes to states.

Speaker 2 Right. And that took a while because over the course of some 80 plus years, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is what's important here.

Speaker 2 It's the Supreme Court that allows Congress, through its interpretation of the clause, to start using this power in greater and greater ways.

Speaker 2 And of course, this all began during FDR's time when the Supreme Court faced enormous pressure to let Congress respond to the Great Depression with national regulation.

Speaker 2 And the commerce power isn't completely limitless, but it's so broad today that it isn't reserved just for regulating actual objects like cans or boxes that cross state lines.

Speaker 2 There are today literally hundreds, maybe 700 laws that actually mention the Commerce Clause at the federal level. And these are laws that regulate all kinds of different things.

Speaker 2 The Endangered Species Act, federal criminal law, food, terrorism, even civil rights laws are justified by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Wow.
Wow.

Speaker 2 So yeah, it just becomes an outsized source of constitutional authority for Congress to regulate all kinds of things. And so it's not that each of these powers have equal importance.

Speaker 2 I would say the Commerce Clause has a really outsized importance in terms of Section 8 power.

Speaker 3 Can you give an example, sort of either in specific or in the abstract, of how the commerce power is used to regulate a thing that isn't boxes and cans going over a border?

Speaker 2 Sure. So if Congress wants to criminalize something, right? Congress doesn't have sort of broad authority to criminalize whatever they want.

Speaker 2 That's something that the states can do, but Congress isn't allowed to do that.

Speaker 2 But they can say, look, we want to prevent firearm violence.

Speaker 2 Get the funny joke, right?

Speaker 2 This is a hypothetical science fiction world in which we're. Okay, go ahead.
Exactly. So they can do that by simply saying, we want to regulate a certain kind of firearm.

Speaker 2 You know, people can't, let's say, possess assault weapons. And they can do so by simply pointing to the fact that a firearm, like an assault weapon, is used or made in interstate commerce.

Speaker 2 So, even though a crime would happen with an assault weapon, let's say, that would happen entirely within a state, what really matters is there's some part of the federal law that specifically refers to interstate commerce.

Speaker 2 And again, in today's world, that's so easy because almost everything is in some way related to interstate commerce.

Speaker 2 There are very few things that are entirely originated in one state and then never leave the state, right? So, that's an example. Okay.

Speaker 2 And so, that's commerce. Now, Section 8 also gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Speaker 2 So this means that Congress has the ability to tax and to spend.

Speaker 2 This is a very important set of powers here too, because Congress can certainly spend money on the federal government, but it can also offer what's called conditional spending to the states.

Speaker 2 In other words, Congress can tell the states, look, if you want these federal funds, you can get them, but only if you abide by certain conditions.

Speaker 2 Now, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government can't force the states to do things directly, but it's perfectly okay for the federal government to offer federal monies as kind of carrots to change behavior on the part of the states.

Speaker 2 I don't know, Roman, do you remember No Child Left Behind? I do, yeah. Right.

Speaker 3 I mean, that was a Bush-era law about, you know, trying to, you know, like give extra money to support education, right?

Speaker 2 Right. That's the benevolent

Speaker 2 description of it. Right.
So George W. Bush signs the law in 2002.

Speaker 2 And no child left behind, that's right, says, look, states, if you want this money, we want you to change the way that you run schools, right? And there's a condition.

Speaker 2 The condition is we want you to start testing kids in elementary school regularly. We want to see if they're falling behind in math and reading.

Speaker 2 And the states had to make sure that the students were proficient under the federal law. That was a big change that happened around the country.

Speaker 2 That's kind of like, if you're of a certain age, you remember just all the time having to take these tests in elementary school.

Speaker 3 Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 I wish I answered that differently.

Speaker 2 That was a horrible time.

Speaker 3 I mean,

Speaker 3 my kids had to go through different testing, and it was like a whole month was kind of gone devoted to testing. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 And in 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which watered down some of these requirements.

Speaker 2 But there still is, nevertheless, a very large role that the federal government plays in education because of Congress's ability to impose conditional spending. Here's another example closer to home.

Speaker 2 You know how solo drivers of electric cars can use the carpool lanes? We see them all the time, right? Yeah, yeah, that's right.

Speaker 2 So that's part of a 20-year-old federal funding program to encourage people to drive electric vehicles.

Speaker 2 The law allows the states to permit this kind of even solo driver to use the carpool lane as long as they're using an electric vehicle. But Congress this year failed to renew it.

Speaker 2 So that's the end of the program. And since states depend on federal funding for their roads, they have to comply with the new rules.

Speaker 2 And that means no more use of the carpool lanes with electric vehicles. Wow.
Okay. Yeah.
So that's a big part.

Speaker 2 So you can see how it can be some pretty dramatic changes just depending on whether or not the states want federal funding. And of course, they always want federal funding.

Speaker 3 Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 So that's spending. Not only does Congress have the spending power, it has the taxing power too.

Speaker 2 And the important reason behind taxing, remember, the government needs to generate revenue in a dependable way.

Speaker 2 All legislation imposing taxes has to originate in the House, the chamber most directly accountable to the people. That's in Section 7, actually, of Article 1.

Speaker 2 But just like with the spending power, the Supreme Court has played a really important role by expansively interpreting Congress's taxing power.

Speaker 2 So the idea here is, yes, of course, taxes are usually used to raise revenue for the federal government, but Congress can also impose taxes as a way to regulate behavior.

Speaker 2 And it is, in fact, the taxing power of Congress that saved Obamacare. Remember that?

Speaker 2 Yeah.

Speaker 2 Let's talk about that.

Speaker 2 So remember, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that was challenged in the Supreme Court. And in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld big portions of the Affordable Care Act.

Speaker 2 Now, remember, in its original form, the Affordable Care Act created a structure where we wanted everybody, both healthy and less healthy, to take part in the insurance market.

Speaker 2 That's how health insurance works. Now, one way the ACA did that was to require everybody to have health insurance.
Now, if you didn't, for whatever reason, you had to pay a financial penalty.

Speaker 2 That was called the shared responsibility payment. This scheme was called the individual mandate, if you'll recall.
And so the ACA needed this to work.

Speaker 2 We got to have everybody or nearly everybody to buy health insurance. So was this plan, get insured or pay? Was that constitutional? Well, in 2012, the Supreme Court said yes.

Speaker 2 The individual mandate was a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power. So as the Supreme Court interpreted it, the taxing power is very broad.
So Congress can use this power.

Speaker 2 I mean, it wasn't wasn't really interested in raising revenue from this, but they wanted to sway people's behavior. And that was perfectly okay because Congress has such broad taxing ability.

Speaker 2 So the ACA is still alive after all these years, thanks in part to the taxing power.

Speaker 3 Interesting. Okay.

Speaker 2 Cool. All right.
Now, section eight ends, right? I don't think we'll have time to go through every portion, but let's end with something that's important. And that is the necessary and proper clause.

Speaker 2 Okay. So this gives Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.

Speaker 3 Okay, so this idea of necessary and proper, these are vague terms. So

Speaker 2 very vague, extremely vague.

Speaker 3 So how does one determine what is necessary or proper?

Speaker 2 Okay, so the necessary and proper clause, it is kind of strange for that reason. It doesn't seem to specify anything.

Speaker 2 And you can think of it not as a standalone power for Congress, but actually an extension of the the other listed powers in Section 8.

Speaker 2 So the clause means that, for example, if Congress wants to use its commerce power, it can use any lawful means they want to exercise the commerce power.

Speaker 2 The necessary and proper power is almost like an extension of the listed powers in the remainder of Section 8.

Speaker 2 So think of federal agencies. Like, why do they exist? The Constitution gives Congress the ability to establish the positions of what the Constitution calls federal officers.
That's in Article II.

Speaker 2 And to ensure that a federal officer, let's say the Secretary of Education, can do his or her duties, Congress can establish a federal agency to help that officer do the duties under federal law that they're supposed to do.

Speaker 2 And in fact, in 1979, Congress did exactly that when it created the Department of Education.

Speaker 2 The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to do that thing, even though there's no specific power to create the Department of Education. Right.

Speaker 2 So, this is also a reminder that federal agencies are created by Congress, and so can only be modified by Congress and can only be dismantled by Congress.

Speaker 2 The President of the United States has no unilateral authority to destroy or get rid of a federal agency. That would require lawmaking, and that's an Article I responsibility.

Speaker 2 Just mentioning that, throwing that out there

Speaker 2 for no reason.

Speaker 3 Interesting.

Speaker 2 So there's also a power in Article 1 that is important, but I think pretty non-obvious. So Roman, what comes to mind when you hear that Congress has the power of the purse?

Speaker 3 The power of the purse means that they're in charge of what to spend, and therefore everything that requires money is somehow controlled by Congress.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I think that's like a pretty typical answer, that Congress has the ability to spend federal money. But where does that come from exactly?

Speaker 2 Because Section 8 says that Congress can raise revenue through taxing and can spend or provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Speaker 2 So it looks like Congress has the authority to determine what it considers spending for the general welfare of the United States. But what does that mean exactly?

Speaker 2 Because every year, the President of the United States comes up with a proposed budget.

Speaker 2 And every year, Congress responds by coming up with appropriations or specifically designated ways to spend money from the treasury.

Speaker 2 But the spending clause doesn't explain totally the power of the purse because it tells us that Congress can spend money, but is Congress the only entity that can spend money?

Speaker 2 Maybe you could imagine a system in which the president decides to spend some money and Congress decides to spend some money.

Speaker 2 So the spending clause doesn't really mean that Congress is the exclusive authority for spending. So that means we need to turn somewhere else.
And that's outside of Section 8.

Speaker 2 Section 9 of Article 1 tells us a bunch of things that Congress cannot do. And here's the important language.

Speaker 2 The Constitution in Section 9 says that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Speaker 2 So this is interesting because the appropriations clause is not a power but a limitation. But it's an important one that tells us something.

Speaker 2 This appropriations clause says that federal funds can't be used unless there is a process of appropriations made by law. Who makes the law? Congress.

Speaker 2 So you see the spending power just says that Congress can spend federal money.

Speaker 2 But the appropriations clause, the one in Section 9, telling us what Congress can't do, actually tells us that it's Congress who's in charge. Congress is in charge of the spending authority.

Speaker 2 Congress alone can determine how federal monies can be spent, not the president.

Speaker 2 The executive branch is simply there to disperse those funds, but only Congress decides how those funds should be spent.

Speaker 2 So the only role in the power of the purse for the president of the United States is the regular process of lawmaking.

Speaker 2 If Congress sends an appropriations bill to the president, the president can sign it or veto it. That's all.
In other words, the president can spend only what Congress allows the president to spend.

Speaker 2 So this is pretty important in understanding why shutdowns happen. It's not because of a lack of funds.

Speaker 2 It's that if there are any parts of the government that didn't receive new funding through a new appropriations bill, then those parts of government shut down. Why?

Speaker 2 Because they don't have the constitutional authority from Congress to spend that money. Got it.
Okay.

Speaker 3 Why couldn't they just put this all in one section?

Speaker 2 I don't know. Deliberately confusing, I guess.

Speaker 2 And so the appropriations clause isn't the only subject addressed in Section 9. This section lists other actions that Congress can't take.
So, why don't we talk about the suspension clause? Okay.

Speaker 2 Okay. So, this clause says that the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Speaker 2 So, habeas corpus, it's a, you know, it seems like a complicated Latin term, it simply means that a person in government custody is trying to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

Speaker 2 So, a court that decides that the person is not being held lawfully can order the government holding the person to release them.

Speaker 2 You're not holding this person lawfully. So this is an ancient writ.
It goes back to the 12th century. And today, usually, it's used most often by prisoners to challenge their convictions.

Speaker 2 But historically, the core idea was to challenge the imprisonment of people who had no access to any judicial procedures at all and perhaps were being held without charges.

Speaker 2 Now, the clause doesn't say that habeas can't ever be suspended.

Speaker 2 It only suggests that its availability can be suspended in extraordinary circumstances, which would be like we are being invaded or there's a rebellion or there's some public safety emergency.

Speaker 2 But again, where is the clause? The clause is in Article 1, meaning that Congress is supposed to be in charge of suspending habeas.

Speaker 2 It's only ever been suspended four times in the past, including early on in the Civil War, but each time there was congressional approval.

Speaker 3 Got it. I feel like I kind of know the answer to this since it sits in Article 1, not in Article 2.
But is this what Trump and ICE are relying on to round up and deport people without trial?

Speaker 3 The fact that this word invasion or public safety?

Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, so you're getting to the strategy, and then the real question is whether that's constitutional. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 So the Trump administration, of course, has been aggressively enforcing immigration laws, including taking people off of the streets, detaining them, and then in many cases, rapidly deporting them.

Speaker 2 The administration has done this to a number of Venezuelan Venezuelan nationals by claiming they are relying on the Alien Enemies Act, which we've discussed in a previous episode.

Speaker 2 But the Supreme Court has said that these Venezuelan nationals can have access to the courts to challenge the lawfulness of their detentions.

Speaker 2 And in fact, other non-citizens who have been detained in this way by the Trump administration have tried to file habeas claims to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

Speaker 2 Now, you're right to say that the Trump administration thinks that it has an answer.

Speaker 2 White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has suggested this year that Trump is considering suspending the availability of habeas corpus.

Speaker 2 And the idea here would be that habeas could be suspended, or the availability of having access to a court saying, please consider the lawfulness of my detention, that that could be suspended because we are undergoing what the Trump administration calls an invasion.

Speaker 2 But the location of the suspension clause provides an answer to Mr. Miller.
It's in Article 1, as part of a directive to Congress.

Speaker 2 The President of the United States doesn't have the constitutional authority all by himself to suspend the availability of habeas corpus.

Speaker 2 And that's really important because really the question is, can the president simply detain people without charges or access to the courts on his own say-so?

Speaker 2 And the availability of habeas corpus says no, unless we are living through some extraordinary times.

Speaker 2 For example, the United States itself is threatened in some way, which I don't think we are at the moment.

Speaker 2 Yeah.

Speaker 3 But regardless of that, this is Congress's duty to determine if there is a case of rebellion or invasion or the public safety may require it, not the president. That's right.

Speaker 2 I mean, there is like a little bit of, you know, historical practice, like Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War and Congress kind of approved of it after, but they did approve of it.

Speaker 2 So there is a sense in which

Speaker 2 the presumption is that Congress has to provide their consent, right? And in fact, the text is pretty clear that it's up to Congress in looking at the location of this power.

Speaker 2 It's for Congress, not the president. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 Okay, that's a big one. All right, so let's turn to another fun part of Section 9.

Speaker 2 Section 9, if you'll remember, prohibits federal officers from accepting gifts or emoluments from foreign states unless Congress consents.

Speaker 2 So you and I talked quite a bit during the first Trump administration about whether or not foreign entities using the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., whether that was considered an emolument.

Speaker 2 There were lawsuits over this. The lawsuits kind of fizzled out after Trump was out of office.
But that very same clause has another element.

Speaker 2 And the whole clause says, no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any title of any kind from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Speaker 2 So this means that the Constitution bans the federal government from granting hereditary titles to anyone, and that federal officers can't accept a foreign title without Congress's consent.

Speaker 2 No kings, right? That's why the slogan is so intuitively appealing. It's embedded in our constitutional DNA, right? It's in the actual original document.
We want no kings.

Speaker 2 We want no one with a hereditary title. And it seems kind of quaint today, right? Because who's threatening to give anybody a title of nobility?

Speaker 2 But titles of nobility were a very big concern at the founding.

Speaker 2 Alexander Hamilton wrote in one of the Federalist essays that so long as titles of nobility are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.

Speaker 2 Wow. Can we talk about fun fact?

Speaker 2 Okay, so please, let's do some fun facts. So it's about the missing 13th Amendment, not the one that was adopted during Reconstruction, not at all.

Speaker 2 So in the years leading up to the War of 1812, there were widespread fears of secret foreign influence.

Speaker 2 So the Federalists, who favored the British, worried about the Republicans, whom they considered influenced by the French.

Speaker 2 So in 1810, Republican Senator Philip Reed introduced a constitutional amendment, which eventually received the necessary supermajority approval by Congress that same year. Here's what it says.

Speaker 2 If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of of nobility or honor, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States. Whoa.

Speaker 2 So that goes so much farther than the Nobility Clause in Article 1. It says no one, no one, period, can accept a title of nobility.

Speaker 2 Congress can't even remove the ban by consenting, and you lose your citizenship. Now, here's the thing, Roman.

Speaker 2 12 states did in fact ratify this over the next four years, but then the movement kind of lost steam.

Speaker 2 But then there was apparently some confusion at the time as to whether it became part of the Constitution.

Speaker 2 At least one researcher has found that there are some early versions of the Constitution floating around that had this phantom nobility amendment printed in it for a few decades.

Speaker 2 Now, as recently as 2020, the National Archives acknowledged that it could still become part of the Constitution.

Speaker 2 But because so many states have joined since 1814, we'd need 38 states for ratification.

Speaker 3 So it doesn't count that it got the necessary three-fourths, like back when it

Speaker 2 had enough three-fourths.

Speaker 2 Interestingly enough, there's like this entire conspiracy theory online where it actually people claim that it was secretly, you know, de facto part of the Constitution because we got the right number at the time.

Speaker 2 And so that it's in operation and we need to be careful about it. Wow.
Yeah. That's super interesting.
So weird.

Speaker 3 More on Article 1 when we come back.

Speaker 3 Blending power, poise, and performance, the Range Rover Sport was designed to make an impact. With a distinctly British design, the Range Rover Sport is built to take on roads anywhere.

Speaker 3 Free from unnecessary details, its raw power and agility shine. Combining a dynamic sporting personality with elegance and agility, it delivers an instinctive drive.

Speaker 3 Its assertive stance hints at an equally refined driving performance. Defining true modern luxury, the Range Rover Sport features the latest innovations in comfort and convenience.

Speaker 3 The cabin air purification system, alongside the active noise cancellation, creates a new level of quality, comfort, and control.

Speaker 3 Terrain Response 2 offers seven terrain modes to choose from, fine-tuning the vehicle for any challenging roads ahead.

Speaker 3 A force inside and out, the Range Rover Sport is available with a choice of powerful engines, including a plug-in hybrid with an estimated range of 53 miles.

Speaker 3 Build your Range Rover Sport at at rangerover.com/slash US slash sport. Article makes it effortless to create a stylish, long-lasting home at an unbeatable price.

Speaker 3 Whatever your personal style may be, Article offers a curated range of mid-century modern, coastal, and scandy-inspired pieces that not only shine on their own, but also pair seamlessly with nearly any other article product.

Speaker 3 Their carefully selected collections feature high-quality, meaningful pieces that will stand the test of time. There is no filler.

Speaker 3 Every item is chosen for its craftsmanship, design, and lasting value. My house is like an article furniture longitudinal study.
I sleep in an article bed.

Speaker 3 My wife Joy works at, and we eat at an article dining room table, and we sit in article chairs. And it has been this way for years and years and years.

Speaker 3 All the furniture I've ever gotten from Article is still in service and performing at its peak. Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more to claim.

Speaker 3 Visit article.com slash 99 and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com slash 99 for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more.

Speaker 3 Every business has its own architecture, a framework, a rhythm. The Hartford understands that.

Speaker 3 With over 200 years of insurance experience and top-rated digital tools, the Hartford has created a system that adapts to the blueprint of each business it serves, whether it's a studio, a storefront, a podcast company, or something entirely new.

Speaker 3 The design of your business isn't isn't one size fits all, and neither is the Hartford Small Business Insurance. Get a quote as unique as your business at thehartford.com/slash small business.

Speaker 3 In 2005, I hired an intern straight out of college, and her name was Delaney Hall, and I still work with her to this day. I think hiring is the most important thing that I do.

Speaker 3 Hiring isn't just about finding someone willing to take the job. You need the right person with the right background who can move your business forward.

Speaker 3 Give your job listing the best chance to be seen with Indeed's sponsored jobs. They help you stand out and hire quality candidates who can drive the results you need.

Speaker 3 Spend more time interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results now with Indeed sponsored jobs.

Speaker 3 And listeners of the show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at indeed.com slash invisible.

Speaker 3 Just go to indeed.com slash invisible right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's indeed.com/slash invisible.
Terms and conditions apply.

Speaker 2 Hiring?

Speaker 3 Do it the right way with Indeed.

Speaker 3 One of the things I also sort of notice in the Section 9 of what Congress can't do is there's lots of sort of vague circumspect language about basically not outlawing slavery for the next 30 years is a huge part of what's in there.

Speaker 2 Could you talk a little bit about that?

Speaker 2 Sure. I mean, I think, you know, we've talked before a bit about like the lingering parts of the shadow of slavery in this document, which is alive and regulates our national government today.

Speaker 2 But these, of course, are very specific compromises in the Constitution, responding to concerns that how do you get all of the states to join on to this brand new experimental Constitution, right?

Speaker 2 That was meant to respond to the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Speaker 2 So it's kind of like this ugly stain that remains part of the original document just floating out there, of course, overridden by later parts of the Constitution, the Reconstruction amendments.

Speaker 2 But it's kind of these, it's like a shadow, of course, something that we can't ignore and certainly is part of the history. So that's the strange thing about the Constitution.

Speaker 2 It's built, it's like a ramshackle building built with things that absolutely don't make any sense anymore and things that vitally regulate everything we do today.

Speaker 2 You know, we can't jettison those parts. We'd have to sort of create a new Constitution from scratch.

Speaker 2 But I think, you you know, as our earlier guest, Nicole Hannah Jones, had mentioned that you can't ignore it either. That's part of our history.

Speaker 3 Aaron Powell, Jr.: It's just sort of interesting in its language to sort of like to go like, okay, so there's a lot of impulse to ban slavery outright, but they never want to invoke the word slavery.

Speaker 3 But there's all these like provisions to like, well, they can't sort of tax it out of existence. They can't stop sort of certain types of international, you know, like, you know, immigration.

Speaker 3 There's like lots of different language to sort of work around the idea of saying basically like if you, the state of South Carolina, sign on to this, we won't ban slavery for the next 30 years for you to figure out how you're going to like function as an economy without slavery.

Speaker 3 It's just sort of, it's fascinating, you know, like it's all built in there.

Speaker 3 And the fact that, you know, like that it's still in there, there's like a general thing that's kind of interesting that's not,

Speaker 3 you know, not necessarily

Speaker 3 intuitive on the face of it is that we keep everything in the Constitution. You could rewrite it

Speaker 3 and just jettison all these parts, but we chose to keep everything permanent and everything that's changed, we add amendments to.

Speaker 3 But there's nothing, you know, like we're at the very beginning of exploring what a written Constitution is.

Speaker 3 And they could have decided that, no, we actually like revise and replace these parts, but we chose not to.

Speaker 2 We could, but I suppose there's also like a different argument to say there's some merit in keeping even that ugly history in there to remind us.

Speaker 2 I totally agree.

Speaker 2 To remind us that this was part of the founding, and we don't want to whitewash what happened then or what the assumptions or ideas were, even of the founding fathers.

Speaker 2 Even if they had these kind of timeless ideas about due process and liberty and the availability of habeas corpus, they also had some ideas that we consider profoundly objectionable today.

Speaker 2 And it's important to just keep it there so that we can learn something about history. It is a historical document as well as a governing document.

Speaker 3 Yeah, I totally agree. I just think that's sort of it's interesting to think through that they were doing all of this for the first time.

Speaker 3 And you could totally say like, you know what, we just want to revise the Constitution.

Speaker 3 I mean, like Jefferson, you know, thought that you should revise the Constitution every 19 years and basically rewrite it, just like form another constitutional convention and say like, what are the rules that should govern us now?

Speaker 3 And instead, we keep this legacy of everything that was written before. And that was also a design choice.
I just want people to sort of like think about that, that they didn't have to do it this way.

Speaker 3 And I think it's interesting that they decided to just like build and build and build and

Speaker 3 keep everything that came before it. And so when you read these sections, you're like, what are they talking about?

Speaker 3 Like, you really have to look through and just like, oh, they're talking about slavery here. They're talking about keeping slavery legal for 30 years,

Speaker 3 no matter what Congress wants to do or the will of Congress wants to do, just so we can get southern states on board. And I think it's interesting.

Speaker 2 Yeah. And in a way, it's kind of funny because the Constitution itself, I mean, the project of the Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation.

Speaker 2 So they actually didn't even do what they were supposed to do, right? So they were like, forget that project. We'll just create a new one from scratch.

Speaker 3 Yeah, that in and of itself, I mean, that was kind of more of the precedent, was just a restart.

Speaker 3 But we decided that this was now the starting point, and now all changes would happen, you know, like as an additive to this thing that was created.

Speaker 3 And I think that's just kind of fascinating. It just didn't have to be that way.
In fact, clearly is evidenced by the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution.

Speaker 3 They didn't, you know, they didn't think it needed to happen that way at that moment.

Speaker 3 So, okay, so those are some things that Congress can't do.

Speaker 2 Okay, so let's turn to Section 10. Okay.
All right. So Section 10 is quite different.
It contains a long list of things that the states cannot do.

Speaker 3 So why are there limitations on what states can do in Article 1 since this is like what, you know, this is supposed to outline what Congress can do?

Speaker 2 Okay, well, part of the reason is that some of the prohibitions on the states can be lifted if Congress consents.

Speaker 2 So, Clause 2 says that states are not allowed to impose any imposts or duties on exports or imports unless Congress agrees.

Speaker 2 So, this is a provision that limits the ability of the states to interfere with interstate commerce. But if, for whatever crazy reason Congress wants to let them do that, they can do that, right?

Speaker 2 Clause 3 of Section 10 says that the states can't keep troops or ships of war in a time of peace or even enter into compacts with other states unless, again, Congress consents.

Speaker 2 So the first part of that is a reminder that war and diplomacy are supposed to be the responsibility of the federal government, not the states.

Speaker 2 But states can enter into compacts if Congress lets them. And over time, there have been many interstate compacts where states agree to get together to solve regional problems.

Speaker 2 And these interstate agreements span everything from regulating water, fisheries, oil and gas, urban planning, even sewage disposal.

Speaker 2 And the Supreme Court has interpreted this compact clause so that Congress actually isn't required to approve every single thing that might be considered an agreement among the states, just like the really important ones.

Speaker 2 And so the basic idea is that Congress should be required to approve of an interstate compact if it somehow challenges or affects the supremacy of the federal government.

Speaker 2 Now, I bring this up because I think because of the times we're living in now, I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see more and more interstate compacts, particularly on the coasts, of states that are getting together to try and solve problems because they think the federal government isn't sharing their values or because the institutions of the federal government have degraded or collapsed altogether.

Speaker 3 And so would each of these compacts then have to be like adjudicated by the Supreme Court or what would happen here? Or approved by Congress?

Speaker 2 So, yeah, so it depends. So, as I said, the Supreme Court doesn't consider every kind of agreement among a group of states to be a compact for purposes of the compact clause.

Speaker 2 So, they have to have certain features.

Speaker 2 And also, if it's of a type that might challenge what the federal government has primary responsibility over, then it might be a problematic compact unless Congress says, yes, you can go ahead and do that.

Speaker 2 Wow. So, some of these compacts, like regulating, you know, let's say, like nuclear waste,

Speaker 2 that in the past has been something that Congress has approved of. But there are lots of other things where states have gone together and, you know, they just do it.

Speaker 2 And because they don't rise to the level of super importance, so that, you know, Congress definitely has to come in and act.

Speaker 2 But I just mean in terms of values and the kind of conflicts that we're seeing now, it wouldn't surprise me again if we see more and more of these states getting together and saying, we want to do something different.

Speaker 3 Yeah. And there's people lobbying for this, like this sort of of soft secession style

Speaker 3 of like forming our own values amongst the sort of the Pacific

Speaker 3 states and stuff like this.

Speaker 3 And you can imagine ones that would immediately get knocked down, like if a collection of states decided to have their own gun laws, that would probably get like immediately like.

Speaker 2 I think so.

Speaker 3 But other ones that seem more possible?

Speaker 2 Well, I mean, there are things that are happening right now.

Speaker 2 It's not clear what the details are, but you've heard of these compacts or agreements by the Western states and the Northeastern states about health alliances, right? Yeah.

Speaker 2 Like trying to recommend, well, this is what we think that our citizens should get in terms of vaccine schedules, even though our Secretary of Health and Human Services says vaccines are bad and you don't need them.

Speaker 2 So that might be something that in theory is contemplated by the clause, but depending on how they do the arrangement and whether it truly is a compact and whether it's the type of compact that would be regulated by the compact clause, we'll have to see.

Speaker 2 Okay.

Speaker 2 And the first clause of Section 10 involves matters which cannot be waived by Congress. It flat out tells states things that they just cannot do.
The states are not allowed to coin money.

Speaker 2 That's left for the federal government. And the Constitution bans the states from passing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws in the same way that Congress is not allowed to do.

Speaker 2 So these are laws that single out a person or entity for punishment or laws that retroactively make conduct illegal.

Speaker 2 And interestingly enough, the same section says that no state shall enter into any confederation. And that is the reason why the Confederacy itself is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Speaker 2 Interesting.

Speaker 2 Okay, how about an Article I power that may not seem terribly relevant today, but still pretty cool to know about? Okay, let's hear it. Okay.

Speaker 2 So if you look at Congress's war power in Section 8, it says Congress shall have the power to declare war and grant letters of mark and reprisal. Okay, what does that mean?

Speaker 2 Okay, a letter of mark and reprisal is a document, an official authorization by the government that allows a private citizen to seize an enemy ship, including their cargo and crew.

Speaker 2 So letters of mark and reprisal have been around since the Middle Ages. And if you were granted such a letter, you were known as a privateer.

Speaker 2 a privateer because you were using your privately owned ship to engage with the enemy so you could reap a financial reward. That's like master and commander kind of stuff.

Speaker 3 Yeah, sure, sure.

Speaker 2 So, like, you're not a pirate, you're doing something legally because the government's allowing you to do it.

Speaker 2 So, letters of mark and reprisal are extremely useful if you don't have a large naval fleet. So, that was the case during the Revolutionary War.

Speaker 2 So, Massachusetts, for instance, began issuing letters of mark and reprisal in 1775.

Speaker 2 And the Second Continental Congress distributed these letters to the colonies so that privateers could capture British ships. We just didn't have a large naval presence.

Speaker 2 And in the first few decades after the Constitution was adopted, Congress issued letters of mark and reprisal. And the Civil War was the last significant use of these letters.

Speaker 2 The Confederacy used privateers. Lincoln had the authority to use privateers, but he, in fact, didn't.
Okay.

Speaker 2 So I did say letters of mark and reprisal weren't all that relevant to our daily lives, but I should mention there have been some attempts to revive the idea.

Speaker 3 Oh yeah, this doesn't sound good.

Speaker 2 So right, does it? So in February of this year, 2025, Senator Mike Lee of Utah suggested that, well, maybe Congress should allow privateers to take on illegal drug cartels at the Mexican border. Wow.

Speaker 2 And he specifically mentioned Congress's ability to issue letters of mark and reprisal in Article 1, Section 8.

Speaker 3 Wow. And so this was sort of de facto deputize private citizens to go after drug cartels.
And in payment, they would actually take whatever they took down or stole.

Speaker 2 That's nonsensical. What do you get to take? Do you take the drugs? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 3 So you would sell the drugs?

Speaker 2 Yeah. He didn't think that part out, but yes, in theory, that's how it would work.

Speaker 3 Oh, my gosh.

Speaker 2 That is not a good world to live in. Right.
But it's still there, and it's an authority of Congress. Okay.
Okay. All right.

Speaker 2 So lastly, let's talk about a power that I think a lot of folks might think is in Article I, but isn't there at all?

Speaker 2 If they think about Article I at all, yeah. Right, if they think about it.

Speaker 2 But yeah, go ahead. So, Roman, you know that Trump's second term has focused on his mass deportation agenda.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 And the rules about who is considered unlawfully within the United States, who may stay, and for what reasons, these are all determined by Congress.

Speaker 2 But if you think about it, why can Congress do this? Hmm.

Speaker 2 So it's a serious question because although Article I has a commerce power, a taxing and spending power, and even has a clause that provides the authority to establish post offices, there is no immigration clause.

Speaker 3 Yeah, I guess I hadn't really thought about that, but yeah.

Speaker 2 The Constitution doesn't mention the word immigration at all.

Speaker 2 The Constitution doesn't give any branch of the federal government the ability to control how non-citizens can come to the United States, how they can stay, or whether they can live here.

Speaker 2 Now, Article 1, Section 8 does give Congress the power to regulate naturalization. That's the process of how a non-citizen can become a citizen.

Speaker 2 But that's not nearly enough of a basis to allow Congress to regulate everything there is regarding immigration. Okay.

Speaker 3 So what is that built on then?

Speaker 2 Well, for a long time now, the Supreme Court has said the ability to regulate immigration just comes from the United States being a country, from being a sovereign nation.

Speaker 2 And since every sovereign nation can regulate its borders, that means that the United States has the immigration authority.

Speaker 2 So according to the Supreme Court, that inherent power, not mentioned in the Constitution at all, is plenary or full, and it belongs to Congress.

Speaker 2 And that also means that the President of the United States has broad authority to enforce these laws. So that's a kind of surprising observation, I think, for a lot of people.

Speaker 2 This enormous amount of national power, the one that is being used by President Trump for his mass deportation agenda, isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all.

Speaker 2 Wow.

Speaker 3 That's definitely something to think about.

Speaker 2 I mean, oh my God.

Speaker 3 But that could also break both ways, right? Like

Speaker 3 it could give all kinds of power that are not written down, or you could interpret it as you have no power to do anything.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, historical practice suggests that we've always assumed that there is an immigration power. I mean, even the founders thought there was an immigration power.

Speaker 2 What's kind of surprising is that we didn't bother to mention it in the document. Yeah.

Speaker 2 And so it becomes a question as to how can you even start to talk about the outer boundaries of that power if we don't even have any words to start with.

Speaker 3 And mostly they've just sort of treated as

Speaker 3 this is just so standard that we build it on sort of a common sense understanding of what a country is, and that's it.

Speaker 2 Aaron Ross Powell, yeah.

Speaker 2 I mean, for sure, the Supreme Court has at times referred to some parts of the Constitution like, you know, we have the ability to regulate foreign commerce and the president has a foreign affairs power.

Speaker 2 And again, there's this congressional ability to regulate naturalization. So I guess if you put them together and sprinkle something on it, that would turn into the immigration immigration power.

Speaker 2 But yeah, mainly the idea is because the United States is a sovereign nation, like any other,

Speaker 2 it has to have the ability to regulate immigration. But again, that's a, you know, in a rule of law context, it would be better if we had something more sturdy to rest that on.
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 I mean, would it be worth to you to like put something in, some kind of an amendment that made sense here? Or is it like at this point, you couldn't really codify it into language?

Speaker 2 Well, I mean, I think it would be useful, you know, in an imaginary world, we could easily do this, to put it into language that, you know, it is Congress that has the immigration authority and that maybe putting some limits on how the executive branch can enforce the immigration power or specifying what the executive branch is allowed to do.

Speaker 2 Because at the moment, we seem to have a Congress that is totally acquiescing to the President's assertions about immigration authority and saying that, in fact, I can do whatever I want because Article II gives me complete authority to do whatever.

Speaker 2 And again, that's hard to come back with saying, but the text says this because the text doesn't say that.

Speaker 3 Because there is no defense. Right.
Because there's nothing there. Right.
There's no there.

Speaker 2 Wow.

Speaker 3 Wow, that's so fascinating.

Speaker 2 Okay. Well,

Speaker 3 this is what is coming to me in this moment where we're talking.

Speaker 3 And, you know, like even the sentence that we mentioned earlier, this like the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it.

Speaker 3 Like, there's lots of things in here that allow for evildoing. Like, the Constitution

Speaker 3 is not a backstop against evildoing. Like, it allows for quite a bit of mischief and making people's lives miserable that you can't really depend on the Constitution for that.

Speaker 3 You have to really depend on

Speaker 3 the ethics and goodness of humans, really.

Speaker 2 Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I think that's right. And in fact, if you look at the Constitution,

Speaker 2 a lot of it seems to explicitly contemplate, look, if if there's an emergency, we can suspend some of these roles.

Speaker 2 But, you know, who gets to declare the emergency and what exactly is an emergency, that's a matter of political accountability. It's not something that the Constitution sets limits on.
Yeah.

Speaker 3 Yeah. This idea of emergency,

Speaker 3 these sort of

Speaker 3 pull the cord in case of emergency stuff that's kind of everywhere in the Constitution. They were nervous about making something that

Speaker 3 tied Congress's hands like a little too much.

Speaker 2 Yeah. And of course, you know, the contemplated emergencies were being invaded, which was like a serious threat and concern at the time of the founding.

Speaker 2 I think, you know, they wouldn't have contemplated a president that would have used immigration as an emergency to say, well, that's why we can detain people without charge or access to the courts.

Speaker 2 That's, you know, that's the novel version. And you're right, the scarier version.
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 3 They would not have contemplated that. They were really thinking about

Speaker 3 British troops landing on a shore and like not not having time to have trials and just like kicking them out if they fit all fit. Yeah.

Speaker 2 Or French influence, French influencers granting titles of nobility right and left.

Speaker 3 Coming up, our conversation with senior senator Elizabeth Warren.

Speaker 3 When you give to a nonprofit, how do you measure success? You hear a lot about things like low overhead costs and efficient fundraising, but what about the actual impact on people's lives?

Speaker 3 GiveWell focuses on that impact. They've spent more than 70,000 hours on research to help donors fund highly cost-effective programs that save or improve lives the most per dollar.

Speaker 3 Over 150,000 donors have already trusted GiveWell to direct more than $2.5 billion.

Speaker 3 You can find all of their research and recommendations on their site for free.

Speaker 3 If this is your first gift through GiveWell, you can have your donation matched up to $100 before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last.

Speaker 3 To claim your match, go to givewell.org and pick podcast and enter 99% Invisible at checkout. Make sure they know you heard about GiveWell from 99% Invisible to get your donation matched.

Speaker 3 Again, that's givewell.org, code 99% Invisible to donate or find out more.

Speaker 3 Cold mornings, holiday plans. This is when you just want your wardrobe to be simple.
Stuff that looks sharp, feels good, and things you'll actually wear. That's where Quince comes in.

Speaker 3 And the bonus, Quince pieces make great gifts too. This season's lineup is simple but smart and easy with Quince.

Speaker 3 $50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like an everyday luxury and wool coats that are equal parts stylish and durable.

Speaker 3 I have this light corduroy jacket that I got from Quince and I love this thing. I was on vacation for a couple of weeks living out of a suitcase and I basically wore it every single day.

Speaker 3 It fits perfect. It looks sharp.
It dresses up any outfit. It's so good.
Get and give Timeless Holiday Staples that last this season with Quince.

Speaker 3 Go to quince.com slash invisible for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada too.
That's q-u-in-ce-e.com slash invisible. Free shipping and 365-day returns.

Speaker 3 Quince.com slash invisible.

Speaker 3 The best B2B marketing gets wasted on the wrong people. So when you want to reach the right professionals, use LinkedIn ads.

Speaker 3 LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, including 130 million decision makers. That's why LinkedIn has the highest B2B ROAS of all online ad networks.

Speaker 3 Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Just go to linkedin.com slash invisible.
Terms and conditions apply.

Speaker 3 This podcast is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to help your business stand out and succeed online.
Every dream needs a domain.

Speaker 3 Squarespace Domains makes it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all-inclusive price, no hidden fees or add-ons required.

Speaker 3 And with Squarespace's collection of cutting-edge design tools, anyone can build a beautiful, professional, online presence that perfectly fits their brand or business.

Speaker 3 Start with Blueprint AI, Squarespace's AI-enhanced design partner, or choose from a library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates.

Speaker 3 The fact that a person like me can do all this stuff in one place is why I use Squarespace for RomneyMars.com. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be done.

Speaker 3 Head to squarespace.com slash invisible for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use the offer code Invisible to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

Speaker 3 And now, our guest for this episode, Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Speaker 3 Senator Warren has represented Massachusetts since 2013, and she's spent a lot of time trying to set up protections for people against big banks and other corporations.

Speaker 3 The Senate has been the most powerful legislative body since the Constitution was ratified. Just 100 people wield great influence over what can and can't happen in this country.

Speaker 3 Through most of its history, the U.S. Senate has worked to slow down and temper the change demanded by the lower house and the president, both for good and for ill.

Speaker 3 One of the hallmarks of the Senate is that they vigorously defend their role as the wise elder decision makers of the country.

Speaker 3 But lately, Republican senators have seemed happy to give over much of their power to the executive branch under President Trump, and that is troubling to people like Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Speaker 3 Just a note, we spoke with the senator in mid-September before the shutdown started. So when we talk about it, we discuss the shutdown as an impending possibility.

Speaker 3 Senator Warren, thanks so much for being on the show.

Speaker 4 Oh, thank you for having me. I'm excited to do this.

Speaker 2 So happy to have you.

Speaker 3 Much of your job description is contained in Article 1, Sections 8 and 9, which sets out the powers of Congress, what Congress can and can't do.

Speaker 3 Which of these powers do you wish people had a better understanding of?

Speaker 4 Well,

Speaker 4 it's that Congress makes the laws.

Speaker 2 And

Speaker 4 that's our job. This is what I see.
I'm just, I go around all day doing Article I stuff,

Speaker 4 which is working on the laws. And when I say that, it's you not only pass the laws themselves, you fund them and make sure there's money to get out and do those things

Speaker 4 and

Speaker 4 raise the revenues in order to fund that work. So we're, you know, we're the branch that's supposed to do the kind of nuts and bolts, not very sexy, but wow, is it important?

Speaker 4 And the reason I say that is not just that you have to make the laws. The point is, what's happening in Article 1 is not what's happening with the President of the United States.

Speaker 4 It's the separation here. And I know people talk all the time about separation of powers and so on.

Speaker 4 But this is really a big deal because this is about, this is like if you had to start with your reading of the Constitution, king, no king.

Speaker 4 It's Article 1 that starts us with no king

Speaker 4 because

Speaker 4 the President of the United States does not get the magic wand,

Speaker 4 which he can then wave over the rest of the country and say, okay, here's the deal. Highways over here,

Speaker 4 millions of dollars over there to build a military base. So for me, that's kind of the heart.
of the job.

Speaker 4 It's not only what we do to make laws, it's that we underscore three times over here in Congress are the ones who are supposed to make the laws. President gets to check us by vetoing them.

Speaker 4 If he doesn't like it, he can veto the budget. But even that, we can override him if our numbers are big enough to do that.
So to me, that's the heart of the game.

Speaker 3 So this power of the purse is sort of like the primary power of Congress. How is that being tested right now in this administration?

Speaker 4 Oh, you heard me inhale.

Speaker 4 Well, and you heard me inhale because, frankly, it's never been tested like this before.

Speaker 4 I mean, you know, there's been a little nibbling around the edge when the president says, I don't want to do that.

Speaker 4 And, you know, there's been a little back and forth, but whoa, way out at the margins and fringes.

Speaker 4 And instead, what's happening right now is, let me just give you a very specific example. Please.
Congress, Congress, triple underline, said,

Speaker 4 here's the money we're going to put into foreign aid and we're going to give it to USAID. And we even got really specific about that.

Speaker 4 And we said, you know, here's money we want to put into vaccinating little children in other countries who face terrible disease.

Speaker 4 Here's money we want to put in to food support in places where there's starvation. And we have a lot of, just a little background here.
There's a lot of policy.

Speaker 4 really interesting policy discussions behind it because it's often things like our own military will say,

Speaker 4 boy, they need some help over here because starvation is what's causing people to turn to the terrorists because the terrorists have gotten financing and can help feed people.

Speaker 4 So please put more money in so that we can get them over with the good guys.

Speaker 4 Why it is that we fund schools in places like Afghanistan.

Speaker 4 But the pieces often fit together and they're often between Democrats and Republicans highly

Speaker 4 contested sounds a little too cranky, but it's the basic idea. It's well, how much do you want for that? Well, I want more for that.

Speaker 4 Well, okay, if I give you more for that, will you give me something over here or stop doing this other thing? And I say Republicans and Democrats, I really want to be fair here.

Speaker 4 Not all Democrats agree with each other. Not all Republicans agree with each other.
So this is a real

Speaker 4 sausage-making moment.

Speaker 4 And so so all of that is by way of saying last year, Congress said, here's how much money we want to make sure goes into USAID, aid around the world. And relative to our budget is really small,

Speaker 4 but really important.

Speaker 4 And a lot of good people made the case for why that money needed to go to fight off Ebola so it doesn't come to the United States. You get the idea.

Speaker 4 Donald Trump comes in with Elon Musk and the golden chainsaw and just says, nope, not going to spend it. We're just, we're going to padlock this agency, literally take down the sign in front, stop.

Speaker 4 And they put something called a stop work order, which, which doesn't just say, spend the money you've already got, roll this stuff on you.

Speaker 4 It literally said, don't touch. this stuff.
And

Speaker 4 food that we had spent to starving people, some of it ends up rotting on docks where it got unloaded.

Speaker 4 Medications that needed to be distributed were just left. I heard from one of my Republican colleagues that a bunch of arms, guns, weapons,

Speaker 4 ammunition that had been seized from

Speaker 4 potential terrorists and groups overseas,

Speaker 4 we just walked away from guarding it and couldn't give the money to the people who were guarding it. And guess what? The guns all get picked up and redistributed, I'm going to assume, to bad guys.
So,

Speaker 4 the question then becomes:

Speaker 4 whoa,

Speaker 4 who

Speaker 4 put a stop to that? Congress didn't put a stop to it. We didn't say, hey, that's okay.

Speaker 4 Donald Trump and Elon Musk, as his, you know, his right-hand man on that, just stopped it.

Speaker 4 And

Speaker 4 if he can do that,

Speaker 4 then that whole notion that Congress decides for better and for worse, Congress decides how to spend money and what programs will get funded, suddenly is gone.

Speaker 4 And we have a president who looks a whole lot more like a king than actually a president who has genuine and meaningful checks. on his power.

Speaker 2 Now, Senator, it sounds like, you know, some people may be confused because

Speaker 2 there are claims that, well, maybe there are legal ways that any president can try and take some funds, defer them, or hold on to them.

Speaker 2 And that they're also, as you described, these big claims of power and taking and interfering with what Congress is doing. Could you explain perhaps what's going on here with President Trump?

Speaker 4 Sure. So think of it this way.

Speaker 4 Congress writes this set of rules, and it basically says Congress is going to get some power. The president's going to get some power.
And the president does have some power.

Speaker 4 He just doesn't have that power. And the courts are going to get some power.
They're going to get to review what the president does and make sure the president stays within the law.

Speaker 4 So

Speaker 4 it's all written on a presumption that nobody gives up power.

Speaker 4 So the whole Constitution functions on this idea that Congress will jealously guard its power. The courts will jealously guard their power.
and the president will jealously guard his power.

Speaker 4 What has shifted now

Speaker 4 is that

Speaker 4 it's both halves. We have a president, Donald Trump, who's saying, gimme, gimme, gimme.
You know, I want to decide where money gets spent.

Speaker 4 I want to decide that this agency doesn't get any money and that agency only gets to do this thing and not this other thing.

Speaker 4 That Donald Trump gets to decide it all.

Speaker 4 And that only works because he has a compliant Congress saying,

Speaker 4 yes, dear leader, whatever you want to do. And

Speaker 4 that's for me the horror of this moment. It's that you've got to want to be king.

Speaker 4 with a spineless Congress.

Speaker 4 And that is not something, go read the Federalist Papers, that any of the folks who are drafting the Constitution

Speaker 4 ever seem to contemplate as a possibility. Right now, think of it this way: we have a Senate that is 5347, 53 Democrats, Republicans, I wish, 53, I'm a Democrat, right? 53 Republicans, 47 Democrats.

Speaker 4 If four Republicans in the United States Senate would say,

Speaker 4 okay,

Speaker 4 we get that you don't like some of the things that Congress allocated money for, but listen, bud, that was the deal. We engaged in a lot of negotiations.

Speaker 4 We got things that were our priorities in return for the other side getting some things that were their priorities.

Speaker 4 You don't get to just sit here and wave the magic wand and suddenly defund things you don't like or move money from up. I'll give you an example that came up this morning in a hearing.

Speaker 4 Move money from repairing Army barracks and Marines barracks that were in terrible disrepair.

Speaker 4 You don't get to seize that money and suddenly use it down at the border to start building your wall or whatever it is you want to do at the border. You just don't get to do that.

Speaker 4 under the rules of the Constitution, who has what powers.

Speaker 4 If four senators would say to the President of the United States, cut cut this out, we're not going to do this with you, and we will not confirm a single secretary or nominee that you send over.

Speaker 4 We will not give you any more money to spend unless you knock it off,

Speaker 4 then

Speaker 4 this moment of

Speaker 4 attack on the Constitution

Speaker 4 would shrink way down. It wouldn't be gone entirely because you'd still have a president who'd be looking for every opportunity to say, gimme, gimme, gimme.

Speaker 4 But he would now be a toddler confined to a pretty small room where he couldn't do nearly so much damage.

Speaker 4 And so that's the thing about separation of powers. It's based on the premise that each of the three groups will defend its own power.
And right now,

Speaker 4 the spineless Republicans are,

Speaker 4 they are creating a part of this constitutional crisis.

Speaker 2 Senator, you've just described a way that the Senate could provide a check on what the president is doing.

Speaker 2 And of course, you know, President Trump has been trying to claim more and more presidential power for himself.

Speaker 2 And we've also seen that the Supreme Court has been pretty willing to grant him that power.

Speaker 2 So if Congress could, or if the Senate could, but isn't doing anything right now about that, could Congress realistically do something to check the Supreme Court itself?

Speaker 4 Well, this is a hard one. So

Speaker 4 let's do this one kind of in steps. You know, part of the answer is it depends on what the Supreme Court says.

Speaker 4 You know, now we're going to, you and I, Elizabeth, can just be dorky law professors here for a year.

Speaker 4 Give me the exact language.

Speaker 4 I feel like I'm back. You know, put your finger on the exact word in the statute that you're using.
To the extent that the Supreme Court says,

Speaker 4 yo, Congress didn't make clear what's happening here. Congress didn't specifically say that the FTC can ban non-compete clauses.

Speaker 4 So

Speaker 4 I guess Trump and the Trump administration can go ahead and knock all that out, right?

Speaker 4 If Congress says, okay, courts, you think we didn't make it clear, let me hit it again and say very clearly, we always have the power power to pass more laws, you know, and if you don't think we got the FTC authorization right at some point, we can step up and say more and say it again, say it more clearly, say it more aggressively.

Speaker 4 And

Speaker 4 to the extent the Supreme Court is claiming that Congress has been ambiguous in something it's written, then yes, we have the power to fix that.

Speaker 4 It may not always be realistic in a deeply divided Congress, but at least theoretically and structurally, it's there.

Speaker 4 The harder one is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, because let's be blunt, that is the job of the Supreme Court, is to

Speaker 4 see if the president and the administration are actually following the Constitution and the law.

Speaker 4 And here's the place, I just got to say, I am very worried that the wheels started coming off a few years back over,

Speaker 4 my particular one I would pick is money in the political system and the Supreme Court saying, why, sure, billionaires can pump billions of dollars into elections.

Speaker 4 And there's really not much that Congress can do.

Speaker 4 I think they are wrong on the Constitution there,

Speaker 4 but it's the upcoming threat.

Speaker 4 And

Speaker 4 we don't know for certain where the Supreme Court will go, but there are certainly,

Speaker 4 I just think of them as the pro-King advocates

Speaker 4 who want to say, they made up this new word, the unitary executive.

Speaker 4 that would give a theoretical president

Speaker 4 who who wants to wear a crown and have a magic wand, would give him that crown and magic wand by saying,

Speaker 4 All of the power everywhere rests with the president, and Congress is the subservient branch, and the courts are subservient. Everyone must bow to the would-be king.

Speaker 4 And

Speaker 4 for me,

Speaker 4 I cannot think

Speaker 4 of an idea

Speaker 4 that is more the opposite of what the Constitution says and what the history of the Constitution was all about. And I say that with a certain passion as the senator from Massachusetts, where in 1773,

Speaker 4 the good folks of Boston

Speaker 4 said,

Speaker 4 we don't want a king telling us we have to pay this tax on tea.

Speaker 4 And

Speaker 4 all right, come on. Just among friends.
It wasn't a huge tax.

Speaker 4 You know, it wasn't, it wasn't like the king was actually showing up at your house and, you know, grabbing your teapot and your pillowcases. You know, it,

Speaker 4 but we said, as a matter of principle,

Speaker 4 You want to tax us, you got to let us have a say in how those laws are written. Does this sound reminiscent? You got to let us have, we didn't call it this at the point, an Article I,

Speaker 4 a place where the people are represented and where we get to say,

Speaker 4 this is how we want to spend money. These are the laws we want to see carried through.

Speaker 4 And, you know, we felt so strongly about that that we dumped that British tea in the harbor. And a lot of people don't remember.
We suffered consequences from that.

Speaker 4 They blockaded the harbor and there was a lot of privation that came from that. A lot of people, we also, at the time, evidently, the folks in Mess Chitch learned to drink coffee.

Speaker 4 So, you know, a lot of things that happened from these. But this is kind of the precursor to the American Revolution.
It's all thought around this central question:

Speaker 4 is there one

Speaker 4 king who

Speaker 4 from whom all things flow,

Speaker 4 or is there a legislature that's our Article 1, that says, nope, you guys over here representing the Eastern states and the Western states, representing Whigs and representing

Speaker 4 all kinds of different groups and different interests, representing rich people and poor people and farmers and urban dwellers.

Speaker 4 You will decide what the laws are, how much money is spent, and then ultimately it's a little later on, obviously, when when we get the amendment in, and how to raise more money to be able to support all of that.

Speaker 4 And right now,

Speaker 4 Donald Trump wants to take that away. And the idea here, he and he alone

Speaker 4 will decide where money gets spent.

Speaker 4 And if that is the case, we just don't have. that same constitution and that same separation of powers that since the Constitution was adopted in 1787 has been our guiding principle.

Speaker 3 Aaron Ross Powell, so you know, there are procedural things in there, sort of unprocedural things that are happening here.

Speaker 3 I mean, in one instance, the sort of Empowerment Control Act leading to a rescission and a lot of these, you know, this rescinding of money, the Rescissions Act of 2025, I mean, that was the process in a way for it to work.

Speaker 3 Is that the process failing, or is is that the sort of the complicity of Republicans inside of Congress doing Trump's bidding?

Speaker 4 It's the complicity of Republicans who evidently are more afraid of Trump than they are of the people who elected them to the Senate and to the House. And look, we're about to face this.

Speaker 4 I'm not going to reverse it on you because the place that, well, the place we're about to face this

Speaker 4 is there's a budget that has to be passed. Funding Funding runs out for the government.
So this is kind of the other half of how this works. So come September 30th, just a couple of weeks from now,

Speaker 4 the government runs out of money and Congress is the only one who can authorize more money going forward. That's again, right there in Article 1.

Speaker 4 So the Republicans who have been entirely spineless on holding Donald Trump accountable to spend the money that they had allocated are now in the business of trying to negotiate with Democrats for a budget.

Speaker 4 And we're all in the shadow of, whoa, let me understand this. We're negotiating for a budget.
And yet if we get into this budget,

Speaker 4 more funding for health care, something we fight for as Democrats, more funding for child care, something I keep fighting for, right?

Speaker 4 We fight for those things and you guys say, yeah, sure, we'll give it to you.

Speaker 4 And then we all sign off on it. We all vote for it.
And then Donald Trump signs it into law. Yay.

Speaker 4 And the next day is like, God, I can't believe how dumb those people are.

Speaker 4 We're not going to put that money into health care. We're not going to put that money into child care.
So that is the context in which these negotiations are taking place right now.

Speaker 4 And that's why over the next couple of weeks, You may hear people talking about,

Speaker 4 so

Speaker 4 what exactly are the parties parties negotiating for? What are the things they're fighting over?

Speaker 4 And for a big one for Democrats, it's going to be get rid of these terrible health care cuts that the Trump administration and the Republicans have forced through.

Speaker 4 We want a lower cost for American families. We want to get some things into the budget for that.
And

Speaker 4 we want some kind of reassurance other than, yeah, yeah,

Speaker 4 that Donald Trump is not going to pull this same thing over and and over and just pick the things we like and negotiated for and defund those.

Speaker 3 Senator Warren, thank you so much for your time and talking to us about the Article 1 of the Constitution. I really appreciate it.

Speaker 2 We're so happy to have you.

Speaker 4 Thank you so much for having me. What a great conversation.
Let's do it again if you have other articles you want to do.

Speaker 2 Please,

Speaker 2 absolutely. Welcome back anytime.

Speaker 4 All right. Take care.

Speaker 3 Join us next month. We're tackling Article 2, which establishes the executive branch of the government.
That will be interesting and relevant.

Speaker 2 Don't miss it.

Speaker 3 The 99% Invisible Breakdown of the Constitution is produced by Isabel Angel, edited by Kometi. Music by Swan Real, mix by Martine Gonzalez.
99% Invisible's executive producer is Kathy Tu.

Speaker 3 Our senior editor is Delaney Hall. Kurt Colstead is the digital director.

Speaker 3 The rest of the team includes Chris Barubay, Jason DeLeon, Emmett Fitzgerald, Christopher Johnson, Vivian Lay, Laush Madon, Jacob Medina Gleason, Kelly Prime, Joe Rosenberg, and me, Roman Mars.

Speaker 3 The 99% Invisible logo was created by Stefan Lawrence. The art for this series was created by Aaron Nestor.

Speaker 3 We are a part of the SiriusXM podcast family, now headquartered six blocks north in the Pandora Building in beautiful, uptown, Oakland, California.

Speaker 3 You can find the show on all the usual social media sites, as well as our own Discord server.

Speaker 3 We have lots of fun discussion about constitutional law, about architecture, about movies, about music, all kinds of good stuff.

Speaker 3 You can find a link to the Discord server, as well as every past episode of 99PI at 99pi.org.

Speaker 3 This episode is brought to you by the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas. Las Vegas is magical at night.
When the sun sets, Las Vegas transforms.

Speaker 3 And at the heart of it all is the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, a luxury resort destination where bold experiences unfold.

Speaker 3 Sip a martini inside the chandelier, discover hidden speakeasies, striking art, and unforgettable views of the Bellagio fountains and the Las Vegas skyline from your terrace suite.

Speaker 3 From restaurants to cocktail lounges and high-energy nightlife, nightlife, every moment invites indulgence. It's not just a hotel stay.
It's an only in Vegas experience.

Speaker 3 Book your stay now at thecosmopolitanlasvegas.com.

Speaker 5 As the daughter of immigrants, financial struggles were part of my everyday reality. In high school, I became homeless and had to live in a woman's shelter.

Speaker 5 Thankfully, being an APIA McDonald's scholar enabled me to attend college and begin a new chapter in my life. And now, my reality is filled with endless possibilities.

Speaker 3 McDonald's has awarded nearly $4 million through APIA Scholars to support students. Learn more at APANext.com.

Speaker 6 Did my card go through?

Speaker 2 Oh no.

Speaker 3 Your small business depends on its internet. So switch to Verizon Business.
And you could get LTE Business Internet starting at $39 a month when paired with select business mobile plans.

Speaker 3 That's unlimited data for unlimited business.

Speaker 2 There we go.

Speaker 3 Get the internet you need at the price you you want. Verizon Business.

Speaker 6 Starting price for LTE Business Internet: 25 megabits per second, unlimited data plan with select Verizon Business Smartphone Plan Savings. Terms Apply.