『America at 250: Due Diligence』のカバーアート

America at 250: Due Diligence

America at 250: Due Diligence

著者： Steve Herman & Bill Bernardoni
無料で聴く

The United States turns 250 this year. America at 250: Due Diligence has a simple premise: the anniversary means nothing without a clear-eyed accounting of where the country actually stands. Hosted by nationally syndicated radio host Bill Bernardoni and former Voice of America White House Bureau ChiefSteve Herman, each episode of Due Diligence examines one of the foundational questions that has defined — and divided — American democracy from the beginning: What does government owe its citizens? How has the promise of the Constitution been kept, broken, or rewritten over 250 years? And where does the country stand today? The program brings together leading historians, former lawmakers, policy experts, and advocates who have lived these debates from the inside — in Congress, in city halls, in courtrooms and in communities. The format is rigorous and fair: each episode presents multiple perspectives, from the historical record through to the sharpest contemporary arguments on all sides. America at 250: Due Diligence is a program for listeners who want more than hot takes and name calling — who want to understand how the country arrived at this moment, what the founding generation actually intended and what serious people across the political spectrum believe the next 250 years should look like.2026 世界 政治・政府 政治学
エピソード
  • The First Shot: 27 Words, 230 Years, and a Fight That Isn't Over

    The First Shot: 27 Words, 230 Years, and a Fight That Isn't Over
    2026/06/27
    Twenty-seven words. That is the entire text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And for more than two centuries, Americans have been arguing about what those twenty-seven words mean — in courtrooms, in statehouses, in campaign ads, and in the streets. The fight is about guns. But it is also about something larger: liberty and public safety, individual rights and democratic government, what the Constitution meant in 1791 and what it can mean in a country the founders could not have imagined. A country with more than 400 million firearms in civilian hands. A country where gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children and teenagers. A country still working out, case by case and law by law, where one of its foundational rights ends and the government's interest in safety begins. The modern legal landscape begins with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense — overturning nearly two centuries of jurisprudence that had centered the right on the organized militia. Fourteen years later, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen raised the stakes further, instructing courts to evaluate the constitutionality of gun laws not by weighing their public safety benefits, but by asking whether they are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. And in 2026, Virginia became the latest front in that fight, enacting one of the most significant state-level assault weapons bans in the country — drawing immediate legal challenges from gun rights groups and setting up a confrontation that may reach the Supreme Court. In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, three guests take on the Second Amendment from three very different vantage points. A constitutional scholar walks through the legal architecture from the founding era through Heller and Bruen, including the uncomfortable racial history embedded in originalist jurisprudence. A Virginia state delegate and combat veteran who spent seven years pushing an assault weapons ban explains what it took to get it done — and what his time under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan taught him about the weapons at the center of this debate. And a constitutional attorney who has argued Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court makes the case that the Virginia law, like every other assault weapons ban, is unconstitutional — and that the most popular rifle in America is firmly on the protected side of the line Congress drew in 1934. Twenty-seven words. Two hundred and thirty years. And the argument persists. Hosts Steve Herman Steve Herman is a veteran journalist and former White House Bureau Chief for Voice of America. He brings decades of reporting experience to America at 250: Due Diligence, helping guide the series through the historical, political, and institutional questions that have shaped the United States. • Website: Steve Herman • X: @newsguyUSA Bill Bernardoni Bill Bernardoni is the founder of Bernardoni Media & Marketing and co-host of America at 250: Due Diligence. His work focuses on building, producing, and distributing podcasts and radio programs that bring serious conversations to broad audiences. • Website: Bernardoni Media & Marketing • Blog: The Bernardoni Brief • X: @BillBernardoni Guests Featured in This Episode Professor Joseph Blocher Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Distinguished Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and the Co-Founder and Faculty Director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. His scholarship on gun rights and regulation has been cited by the Supreme Court and nearly every federal court of appeals. He is the co-author of The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018), one of the most widely cited works in the field, as well as The Second Amendment: Gun Rights and Regulation (Foundation Press, 2025). He has testified before House and Senate committees and written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major publications. • Duke Law faculty page: Joseph Blocher • Duke Center for Firearms Law: firearmslaw.duke.edu Delegate Dan Helmer Dan Helmer represents Virginia's 10th District in the House of Delegates. A graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar (Wolfson College, Oxford), he served as an Army Intelligence and Armor Officer with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. He was the chief patron of the Virginia House Companion Bill for the Commonwealth's 2026 assault weapons ban — legislation ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    56 分
  • The State of Control: Federalism and the Limits of Federal Power

    The State of Control: Federalism and the Limits of Federal Power
    2026/06/20
    As America approaches its 250th anniversary, America at 250: Due Diligence turns to one of the oldest unsettled arguments in American life—not whether to have a national government, but how much of one. Where should power actually live: close to the people, in the states and towns where most Americans spend their lives, or at the center, in Washington? The argument was there before the ink was dry. Inside the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison pushed for what became known as the "federal negative"—a congressional veto over state laws—and lost. The states were too protective of their authority and too wary of a powerful national government to surrender that kind of control. What emerged instead was what Madison called a "compound republic": a national government strong enough to provide for defense, regulate trade and raise its own revenue, layered over states that retained broad responsibility for the everyday business of governing. It was a balance built through compromise—including compromises that preserved slavery and embedded protections for it within the constitutional order. That balance has been renegotiated ever since, almost always under pressure. In 1937, after the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal programs, Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six justices to the Court. His plan failed, but during the same period the Court began upholding major economic regulations and federal programs, helping establish a much broader understanding of national power. In 1962, federal marshals and troops enforced a court order allowing James Meredith to become the first Black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson urged Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, providing the strongest federal enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment since Reconstruction. And in 1981, Ronald Reagan stood on the inaugural platform and declared that the federal government did not create the states—the states created the federal government. Today, the same argument is live again: in clashes over immigration enforcement and the deployment of federal forces within states; in disputes over who controls election administration; in mid-decade redistricting and gerrymandering battles; and in the narrowing reach of federal voting-rights protections after Shelby County v. Holder and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. To trace the original architecture, where it has been tested and where it stands now, this episode brings together three very different voices: a constitutional law scholar who argues that most domestic governing was designed to remain close to home; a political scientist who examines what has happened when fundamental rights were left to the states to protect; and a constitutional lawyer who contends that the federal government has moved far beyond the limited, enumerated powers the Constitution grants it. Together, they wrestle with a question that runs through 250 years of American history: Is federalism a safeguard the founders wisely built into the Constitution to prevent any one level of government from becoming too powerful—or can it become an excuse, dressing the denial of rights in the language of local self-government? Federalism can be both. The fight is over which one it is. Hosts Steve Herman Steve Herman is a veteran journalist and former White House Bureau Chief for Voice of America. He brings decades of reporting experience to America at 250: Due Diligence, helping guide the series through the historical, political, and institutional questions that have shaped the United States. Website: Steve Herman X: @newsguyUSA Bill Bernardoni Bill Bernardoni is the founder of Bernardoni Media & Marketing and co-host of America at 250: Due Diligence. His work focuses on building, producing, and distributing podcasts and radio programs that bring serious conversations to broad audiences. Website: Bernardoni Media & Marketing Blog: The Bernardoni Brief X: @BillBernardoni Guests Featured in This Episode Randy E. Barnett Randy E. Barnett is the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Law Center and faculty director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. A former felony prosecutor in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Barnett argued the medical-marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich before the U.S. Supreme Court and was one of the lawyers representing the National Federation of Independent Business in its constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. He is the author or co-author of numerous books on the Constitution, including Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty and The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. In this episode, Barnett explains the original architecture of Madison's "compound republic"—and why he believes national authority has expanded far beyond the domestic role the founding generation envisioned. Faculty Profile: Randy E. ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    59 分
  • The Key to the Cage: Is It Time for an Article V Convention?

    The Key to the Cage: Is It Time for an Article V Convention?
    2026/06/13
    As America approaches its 250th anniversary, America at 250: Due Diligence turns to one of the most consequential — and least understood — provisions in the U.S. Constitution: Article V, and the question of whether the country should call its first-ever Article V convention. This episode opens in the summer of 1787, inside a sweltering Pennsylvania Statehouse, where George Mason — one of the sharpest minds at the Constitutional Convention — warned that the founders were "building a cage without a key." Mason's insistence on a state-led convention process became Article V's second amendment pathway, a mechanism that has never once been used in 250 years of American history. Today, that mechanism is at the center of a growing political movement. The Convention of States Project has organized more than 20 states behind a push to convene a convention aimed at imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and jurisdictional limits on the federal government. Supporters call it the founders' intended check on a federal government that won't check itself. Critics warn it's a legal "pig in a poke" — a process with no rules for who attends, what they can do, or how it could be stopped once started. To unpack the history, the strategy, and the stakes, the episode brings together three very different voices: a constitutional law scholar who has spent years studying Article 5's uncertainties, the leader of the nationwide campaign to trigger a convention, and a former U.S. senator whose book lays out why he believes the effort poses a serious danger to the Constitution as we know it. Together, they wrestle with a question that traces straight back to George Mason's "cage without a key": is Article V's convention clause a safety valve the founders wisely built in — or a loophole that's never been tested because it's too dangerous to use? Hosts Steve Herman Steve Herman is a veteran journalist and former White House Bureau Chief for Voice of America. He brings decades of reporting experience to America at 250: Due Diligence, helping guide the series through the historical, political, and institutional questions that have shaped the United States. Website: Steve Herman X: @newsguyUSA Bill Bernardoni Bill Bernardoni is the founder of Bernardoni Media & Marketing and co-host of America at 250: Due Diligence. His work focuses on building, producing, and distributing podcasts and radio programs that bring serious conversations to broad audiences. Website: Bernardoni Media & Marketing Blog: The Bernardoni Brief X: @BillBernardoni Guests Featured in This Episode David Super David A. Super is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics at Georgetown University Law Center, where his research focuses on constitutional law, administrative law, and the federal budget. He has written and testified extensively on Article 5, including before state legislatures considering convention-related resolutions, and is a leading voice raising questions about the legal uncertainties surrounding a convention's scope, delegate selection, and ratification process. Faculty Page: David A. Super — Georgetown Law Mark Meckler Mark Meckler is the co-founder and president of Convention of States Action, part of Citizens for Self-Governance, and a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. He leads the nationwide campaign to call an Article V convention of states aimed at imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and jurisdictional limits on the federal government — an effort that has secured resolutions from 20 states. Website: Convention of States Project X: @MarkMeckler Russ Feingold Russ Feingold is a former U.S. senator from Wisconsin, where he served nearly two decades and was the lone vote against the Patriot Act. He is the co-author, with Peter Prindiville, of The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It, which examines the risks of an Article 5 convention and the broader challenges of constitutional change in a polarized era. Book: The Constitution in Jeopardy — Hachette Book Group Listener Question As America turns 250, do you think Article 5's convention clause is a safeguard the founders got right, a loophole too dangerous to use, or something that needs to be reformed before anyone calls a convention? Join the conversation and respond by sending us an email by visiting RadioFreeAmerica.media.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません