Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies comments on some of the national myths about America and explains why they are at best misleading, and at worst, outright lies. For example, Margulies debunks the claim that America is “the land of opportunity” and “the land of milk and honey.”

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, discusses what happens now, after Senate Republicans voted to acquit President Trump. Falvy predicts that (1) President Trump will be emboldened to commit further abuses of power, (2) future presidents will be less constrained by fear of impeachment, and (3) impeachment may become more routine as political practice and significantly less effective as a constitutional remedy.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether there is anything Senate Republicans might have done, instead of outright acquitting President Trump, to maintain the role of Congress as a coequal branch with the Executive. Buchanan proposes that under the text of the impeachment clauses, those Republican senators could have voted for removal—the necessary result of finding wrongdoing—but permitted Trump to run again in the election later this year.

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discuss Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz’s explanation of why he stands (virtually) alone in his views on impeachment—that all the scholars who disagree with him are biased partisans. Amar and Caminker explain why this claim is so insidious, with effects lasting well beyond the span of the current presidency.

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies reminds us that the rule of law exists in the United States primarily to conceal politics; that is, one cannot rely on having “the law” on one’s side if politics are opposed. Margulies illustrates this point by replacing “the lawyers reviewed the law and decided” with “the high priests studied the entrails and decided”—a substitution that ultimately yields the same results.

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the Democratic presidential candidates attacking each other over policy differences and other issues rather than unifying to oppose President Trump in the general election. Buchanan argues that, perhaps illogically, the infighting is essential and a healthy part of the process.

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone evaluate the suggestion made by some that the votes of senators on President Trump’s impeachment can and should be private. Amar and Mazzone argue that while the text of the Constitution alone does not foreclose secrecy, structural, prudential, and logistical considerations strongly disfavor a secret vote on the matter.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf offers one interpretation of Chief Justice John Roberts’s annual year-end report on the federal judiciary—that the Chief Justice intends to serve as a modest counterbalance to President Trump. Dorf supports his interpretation with text and context of the year-end report but offers his cautious praise to the Chief Justice with a few important caveats as well.

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Christopher S. Owens discuss the unique situation of the impeachment of a U.S. President for conduct not alleged to be a crime. Looking to both text and history, Estreicher and Owens argue that commission of a particular, defined crime should be necessary for presidential impeachment for the preservation of the legitimacy and original purpose of that political device, particularly in polarized times such as these.

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, explains why former National Security Advisor John Bolton may hold the key to what happens with the impeachment proceedings of President Trump. Falvy describes Bolton’s background and shows why he may play such a critical and unique role in what happens to the President.

Neil H. Buchanan, a University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist, argues that a 2020 win for President Donald Trump would likely to lead to the end of constitutional democracy. Buchanan points out that the demise would be due not only to what Trump would do if reelected, but also what the Democratic Party and the media would do to pretend that the victory resulted from legitimate processes.

University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that, notwithstanding some commentators’ claims to the contrary, President Trump poses an existential threat to democracy in the United States and removing him from office via impeachment would be less messy and divisive than defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020. Buchanan points out that there is no reason to believe that Trump will accept losing the 2020 election, and there is every reason to fear that the inevitable protests by the majority of Americans whose votes defeated Trump will be met with violence.

University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan calls upon Democratic presidential candidates Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar to step up and say what they are for, rather than merely what they are against. While Buchanan acknowledges that he does not fully agree with Warren’s Medicare-for-All proposal, but he praises her for being bold enough to put forth a plan, unlike many of her competitors.

University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Democrats should draft broad articles of impeachment. As Buchanan points out, if the Democrats do not lay out the full case against Trump, everything that is left out will have been validated and will become a precedent for future misdeeds by this or any other President.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg and his critics are both wrong about the U.S. Supreme Court having become especially political. Dorf points out that since the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison the Court has been highly political, and the true problem lies with the unprecedented polarization of the political parties—not with the Court or the appointments process.

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, discusses the private testimony of U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor regarding President Trump’s interactions with Ukraine. Falvy argues that by meticulously tracking his digital and verbal conservations with other high-level players, Taylor is forcing the implicated officials to engage at a similar level of detail and precluding them from asserting blanket “I do not recall” defenses.

University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan criticizes Democratic pundits and presidential candidates for trying to force Senator Elizabeth Warren to say explicitly whether she intends to raise taxes to pay for her healthcare-for-all plan. Buchanan points out that their insistence on this point essentially does Republicans’ work for them, rather than setting the table for an honest and clear discussion about the financial costs (by any name) of reform.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent unanimous decision by the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament. Dorf explains how that ruling highlights the error of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court declined to intervene in a political gerrymandering case, citing the so-called political question doctrine.

University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Biden’s campaign promise of a return to “normal” if he is elected President could result in the country’s situation becoming even worse than it currently is. Buchanan suggests that if Biden wins the nomination and the presidency and he is not seen as a serious fighter, he will lose a generation of voters forever.

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a panel of state-court judges in North Carolina striking down partisan gerrymandering schemes as violating that state’s constitution. Amar had argued after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that state courts would have to address partisan gerrymandering on “independent and adequate state-law grounds” (rather than on federal constitutional grounds), which is exactly what the North Carolina court did.