Transcript

Sex, Ducks and the Founding Feud | Radiolab Podcast

From Radiolab · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 25 min · 4,418 words · 34 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Sex, Ducks and the Founding Feud | Radiolab Podcast", an episode of Radiolab published July 6, 2025 (25 min, about 4,418 words). It mentions 13 people, works and ideas, including Caroline Bond, Nick Rosen, Kelsey Padet, Duncan Hollis, Joseph J. Ellis.

What this episode is about

The content explores the ongoing power struggle between federal and state governments in the U.S. through a captivating narrative that highlights the complexities and scandals of constitutional law and federalism, all framed within an engaging story involving a betrayed spouse. It aims to make these intricate political topics relatable and interesting for the listener.

Key takeaways

  • Federalism often resembles a game of tug-of-war—who decides what? Spoiler alert: it’s a convoluted mess.
  • When betrayal meets biochemistry, even the post office turns into a crime scene investigator—who knew?
  • Charged under the International Chemical Weapons Treaty for a thumb burn? Welcome to the absurdity of legal loopholes!
  • In a nation fixated on power struggles, sometimes the real drama unfolds in suburban backyards—not in Congress.
  • Who knew that toxic revenge could escalate to international law? Just another Tuesday in the life of a betrayed spouse.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Caroline Bond, Kelsey Padet, Nick Rosen, Duncan Hollis
  2. – 10:00: Nick Rosen, Founding Brothers, Caroline Bond, Joseph J. Ellis
  3. – 15:00: Kelsey Padet, Frank Mallister
  4. – 20:00: Caroline Bond, Nick Rosen, Eric Bellinger, Frank Mallister
  5. – 25:00: Kelsey Padet, Duncan Hollis
  6. – 25:09: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Notable quotes from "Sex, Ducks and the Founding Feud | Radiolab Podcast"

  • My name's Duncan Hollis. He's not the betrayed spouse. Nope. I'm a professor of international law here at Temple University in Philadelphia. And I'm Nick Rosen Crrrays. And not him either. I'm a.
    about Duncan Hollis · at
  • The other woman is named Melinda Haynes, by the way. And eventually, Carol Bond, she did what anyone would do. She got a bunch of toxic chemicals and I do it all the time. And she tried.
    about Melinda Haynes · at
  • And here's the thing. They ended up charging Caroline Bond with violating the International Chemical Weapons Treaty. What? We should be clear. The victim got a tiny thumb burn and ran.
    about Caroline Bond · at
  • Revolutionary summer. You are a modest man. So, Joseph Ellis has written a he's a Pul surprisewinning author. He's written a bunch of books about the founding of our country the revolutionary war and there is a scene.
    about Founding Brothers · at
  • That according to Joe was Madison's epiphany. That the Constitution isn't a set of answers. It's a framework for argument. This is a document which allows us to continue to discuss and debate the core issues that we face. The.
    about Joseph J. Ellis · at
  • America, has left us jostling between the federal government and the state governments. And Kelsey Padet is about to tell us what all that has to do with ducks.
    about Kelsey Padet · at
  • The supreme law of the land. So maybe if we make an international treaty, then the states will have to go along. Frank Mallister, he sues and this goes all the way up to the…
    about Frank Mallister · at
  • About it, this is really troubling. This decision seems to say that theoretically the federal government's power is potentially infinite cuz like say John Kerry who's our…
    about Nick Rosen · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Caroline Bond — Person · Central case subject (defendant) · 4 mentions · first at
    Her attempted poisoning case becomes the vehicle for debating federalism and the treaty power (Chemical Weapons Convention implementation).
  • Nick Rosen — Person · Main interviewed expert (constitutional law perspective) · 4 mentions · first at
    Explains why Bond’s prosecution is unusual, and argues the treaty power could imply near-infinite federal legislative reach—raising federalism concerns.
  • Kelsey Padet — Person · Reporter (segment producer/narrator) · 3 mentions · first at
    Reported the segment; narrates both the Bond poisoning story and the Missouri v. Holland ‘ducks’ story that supplies the legal precedent.
  • Duncan Hollis — Person · Main interviewed expert (international law perspective) · 2 mentions · first at
    Provides international-law context for treaty implementation and argues globalization increases the need for national-level (and treaty-based) regulation.
  • Joseph J. Ellis — Person · Referenced expert (historian/author) · 1 mention · first at
    Provides historical framing of the Founding-era sovereignty dispute (Hamilton vs. Jefferson) and Madison’s ‘framework for argument’ view of the Constitution.
  • Eric Bellinger — Person · Referenced expert (former U.S. State Department legal adviser) · 2 mentions · first at
    Defends the Chemical Weapons Convention’s application and warns that limiting treaty power could undermine U.S. credibility in international commitments.
    Peaceful purpose. That's the exact language. And that guy, that's John Bellinger. I served as the legal adviser for the Department of State under Secretary Condisa Rice. And…
  • Frank Mallister — Person · Historical case figure (state official litigant) · 2 mentions · first at
    Missouri attorney general in the episode’s retelling of Missouri v. Holland; his duck-hunting arrest triggers the treaty-power Supreme Court precedent.
  • Melinda Haynes — Person · Case participant (victim/affair partner) · 1 mention · first at
    Identified as the neighbor/best friend who had an affair with Bond’s husband and became the target of Bond’s poisoning attempts.

Books & papers

  • Founding Brothers — Book · Referenced work · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a book written by Joseph J. Ellis, discussing the founding of the United States.
  • Revolutionary Summer — Book · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the most recent book by Joseph J. Ellis, discussing the revolutionary war.
    My name is Joseph J. Ellis. I am a historian. I've written the book called Founding Brothers and my most recent book is called what's it called?
  • Just Keep Going — Book · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a book by Joseph J. Ellis, discussing the founding of the United States.
    Founding of our country the revolutionary war and there is a scene in one of his books book called American Creation didn't sell as many as founding brothers. Doesn't matter to…

Companies & orgs

  • Georgetown — Company · Affiliation · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the affiliation of Nick Rosen Crrrays, a professor of law.
    Of international law here at Temple University in Philadelphia. And I'm Nick Rosen Crrrays. And not him either. I'm a professor of law at Georgetown. I'm also a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Ko Institute. So, Mrs.

Sponsors

  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation — Company · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a foundational supporter of Radio Lab.
    Hi, I'm Adena. I'm calling from Greensburg. Leadership support for Radio Lab science programming is provided by the Simons Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radio Lab was provided by.

Full transcript with timestamps

Hey, this is Radio Lab. I'm Latif Nasser. And ever since I came to this country, the United States, and became a citizen here, um, one thing you notice is that everyone is always arguing about who gets to decide. There's this constant power play in this country between the federal government and the state governments. And it's like no matter what issue you are looking at whether it's immigration or climate change or AI regulation or you know a million other things somehow there's this question of who gets to decide who gets power over what. And honestly I just get so tired of that conversation.

It feels super important. It's obviously very high stakes, but it can get so tedious and technical and it just makes your eyes glaze over. So, today I want to play for you a story that when I first heard it, it just made that question pop out at me in a completely different way. It made that question actually interesting and it told it in a way that was actually a little bit scandalous. We originally released this episode back in 2013. I'm excited for you to hear it or rehear it. The episode is called Sex, Ducks, and the Founding Feud. Enjoy. Yeah, you're wait. You're listen.

All right. Okay. All right. You're listening to Radio Lab. Radio from WNYC. Rewind. Today on the podcast, Robert, we're going to talk um constitutional law, uh federalism, and uh and the intricacies of international treaty practice. Oh god, no. It's going to be good. It's going to be good. It's going to be good cuz I have help. Hey guys. Hi Kelsey. Hello. Kelsey Badget has reported this segment and just listen to how it starts. So the story starts with a betrayed spouse. Oh, we see. That was much better. I'm coming back to my seat. Get some popcorn.

My name's Duncan Hollis. He's not the betrayed spouse. Nope. I'm a professor of international law uh here at Temple University in Philadelphia. And I'm Nick Rosen Crrrays. And not him either. I'm a professor of law at Georgetown. I'm also a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Ko Institute. So, Mrs. Bond, that's her. That's our betrayed spouse. Caroline Bond, 36, lives in a suburb of Philly. Discovered that her husband was having an affair with her neighbor. Actually, it was worse than that. This woman is her best friend.

And not only that, uh she finds out that her friend is pregnant uh via her husband. He got her pregnant. Oh my god. Yeah. And this is her best friend and her husband of 14 years. You know, she was quite upset, distraught, enraged, I would imagine. Yeah. Carol made threats. There were confrontations. The other woman is named Melinda Haynes, by the way. And eventually, Carol Bond, she did what anyone would do. She got a bunch of toxic chemicals and I do it all the time. And she tried to poison her best friend repeatedly.

Oh, back up for a second. Where would she have gotten the chemicals from? She worked, I believe, at a lab. She works for a chemical company. I think it's Roman Hos. So, she's a biochemist. She's actually a microbiologist, but she uh grabbed some chemicals from her office. I think she also orders some off the internet, Amazon.com. But they're pretty serious chemicals, like what? Well, one was arsenic based and in large enough uh doses, and when I say large doses, I'm talking teaspoons, not gallons, it can, you know, um cause serious injury and can be fatal. So anyway, she took these chemicals, she went over to her best friend's or well, her former best friend's house, and she spread them on the door knob and on the mailbox, the door to her car, and they're visible, I guess. I guess you can see them, so the best friend isn't fooled. Nope. She calls actually the local police. The local police tell her to take her car to

a car wash. They said, "Oh, it, you know, could be drugs. We'll get the car washed off." They kind of just blow her off. Uh, but it keeps happening over over the course of like half a year. This happens 24 times. 24 powder attacks. According to the court briefs, you know, the police were just not being very responsive. She called them over a dozen times and they tested it to see if it was cocaine, but once they figure out it wasn't, they didn't really do anything. So finally she tells the post office and it was the post office that actually sent out postal inspectors and they set up a hidden camera and they videotaped Caroline Bond in the act. They get it on tape. That's how they identify her as the person putting the chemicals, you know, on the mailbox. I didn't know the post office did stuff like that. I did, to be honest, I didn't either. That's so I think of them so differently now. Yes.

And um I think if there's a moral to the story, it is do not mess with the males. They take that they take that very seriously. Actually, there's a whole lot more going on than just messing with the mail because of what happens next. Um, so according to Nick Rosen Cray, generally things like assault or attempted murder. Those are state crimes. In most circumstances, the federal government can't charge you with murder. The post office, that's a federal institution. So when they caught Caroline Bond, they kicked this up to the federal attorney who then went ahead and brought a federal case.

And here's the thing. They ended up charging Caroline Bond with violating the International Chemical Weapons Treaty. What? We should be clear. The victim got a tiny thumb burn and ran cold water on it and was fine. So, this is We're not This is um I didn't know that. This is not murder. That makes this all the more odd. Very odd. When I poison someone, I'm the last thing I'm thinking about is violating an international treaty. We should never have you over for lunch. But no, really, why would they charge you with that? I don't understand. Well, if you actually read the treaty, the statute simply says that it's a crime to use a toxic chemical for other than a peaceful purpose. That's the exact language. And that guy, that that's John Bellinger. I served as the legal adviser for the Department of State under Secretary Condisa Rice. And John says that even though it sounds a little weird, this is exactly what this treaty

was meant for. For people using chemicals, highly toxic chemicals for non- peaceful purposes. Exactly right. And that's what happened here. Imagine if she had killed a bunch of postal workers then. I don't think anybody would complain. But to charge her with an international treaty violation, it just seems it seems too big for the little lady. It was really odd to her lawyers, too. I bet. They're like, "Look, in the Constitution, you have laid it out what the federal government could do. This is not one of those things. You can't just take a treaty and use it to reach into the very local life of a normal person.

That's a huge overreach." Sneaky, frankly. And now this case is before the Supreme Court. Boo. And it's become an ideological battle that goes way beyond Carolanne Bond, her cheating husband, or her adulterous best friend. And I would argue that this case, as weird as it is, raises some really important uh issues about how the world is changing and about one of the most fundamental questions that is at the heart of America. I I I I really believe that. Well, you'll have to defend that position. What do you What do you mean?

Let me take you back to the beginning. Okay. Sure. My name is Joseph J. Ellis. I am a historian. I've written the book called Founding Brothers and my most recent book is called um what's it called? revolutionary summer. You are a modest man. So, Joseph Ellis has written a he's a Pul surprisewinning author. He's written a bunch of books about the founding of our country um the revolutionary war and there is a scene in one of his books book called American Creation didn't sell as many as founding brothers. Doesn't matter to me because it has this one passage that when I read it I was like wow I've never thought of this country that way but just sets a scene. It's you want to be real specific. It's September. September 1787 Philadelphia. You know it's abominably hot. Yet all these great men crammed into a state house. I mean, George Washington, this guy is a stud. 6'3, war hero. This guy is overwhelming.

Alexander Hamilton was there. Hamilton, he would have got the highest grades on the LSATs. I'm telling you, this guy was really smart. Even Ben Franklin. Yeah. Who's pushing 81 at this point? Franklin's there. Oh, they all came together to try and figure out like how do we do this? Like if you think about it, it was a puzzle because you've got these 13 colonies which are really like sovereign nations and they they they were loosely organized into a federation that was about to go bankrupt. So they had to do something. So they're like, "Okay, let's bring them together into a union." But how do we do that without a king? It was a crazy experiment. Well, I mean, one thing you got to realize that at that time in American history, the average person was born, lived out his or her life, and died within a 30 mile radius. They don't have cell phones and they don't think about themselves as Americans. They thought of themselves as

Pennians, South Carolinians, Bostononians. There is no real national ethos. So that's one problem. Second problem, the founding fathers could not agree could not agree on the most basic question. If there's not a king, who's in charge, right? The so-called sovereignty question. And on the one hand, you had a guy like Alexander Hamilton who got up there and was like, why do we even need states? What's a state? All right. What we need is a federal government that is big and strong and powerful. That's Hamilton, baby. Hamilton wants a president elected for life. Hamilton wants a senator elected for life. On the other hand, you had the Thomas Jefferson school of thought, which was like, "No, no, we just got out of a monarchy for Christ's sake. And the only way we're not going to get back in one is if we keep the government small, restricted, and all domestic policy belongs in the hands of the states." Sound familiar? Jefferson

likes anything in which the government's not going to be doing much. So you had these two very different philosophies. And the way Joe sees it, if you let Jefferson have total power, we end up at anarchy. If you let Hamilton have total power, you're going to end up with a totalitarian state. At the convention, the two sides went back and forth. And anytime a Hamiltonian type proposal hit the floor, some of the states would say no. and they chewed it down because they did not want some big government telling them what to do, especially when the 800 lb gorilla in the room was slavery.

So, they couldn't agree at all. And into this mess, walks our hero, James Madison. Madison, you know, like Madison's 52, 120. Madison, he's the kind of guy that, you know, stands in the corners during a dance. He's you would call him a nerd. Madison or you might call him a pragmatist. Madison wants a clear decision about sovereignty. Yeah. Like for example, on local matters, who gets the final say, the states or the federal government? Just give me some clarity. And uh he's not going to get it. And he comes to that realization at the very end because at the end of this convention, they have this document. I mean, he wrote the original blueprint. Now there's this new document so riddled with compromises that according to Joe the basic question he wanted answered wasn't the who's in charge question was left kind of vague on all sorts of matters. I mean who regulates money in banks? Who gets to

tax what? Who decides whether new states will be slave states or free states? It was vague. And initially, according to Joe, in a letter that Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson, he's like, "Come on." He's very disappointed. He thinks the document's going to fail and the country is going to fail. He doesn't think this is going to last. But then Joe says in his writings, you start to see a shift. He starts to think differently. He starts to say, "Oh, yeah, wait a second. This this could work precisely because it's unclear." And we found what he calls a middle station where everyone can see what they want to see. I mean, people come out of the convention, go back to their states, and the guy in South Carolina says, "Don't worry about slavery. The 10th amendment's going to tell us that they can't do that." The guy in Pennsylvania says, "It's just a matter of time before we end slavery."

The Constitution becomes successful because the people don't agree on what it means. That according to Joe was Madison's epiphany. That the Constitution isn't a set of answers. It's a framework for argument. This is a document which allows us to continue to discuss and debate the core issues that we face. The powers of the presidency, the sovereignty question. The real resolution of the sovereignty question is never is never achieved and um and it it eventually leads to the civil war. What I find kind of neat about this is that like that argument that happens in modern politics all the time about states rights or the size of the government, which can feel like a random argument for me at times. Suddenly to know this, I mean, if you buy what Joe's saying, it's not random at all. This is an argument that was actually literally written into our founding document. In some sense, we as a country are the

product of that argument. Of course, not everybody agrees with Joseph Ellis. There are people who who think that the founding fathers had a very specific thing in mind and if you just go back to their debates and to what they said to each other that you can find the real only deep logic for the constitution. But but the fact that they disagree with Joe in some sense, doesn't that kind of make Joe's point that you can read this document in 10 different ways? Yes. That everyone always argues always. Yes. No. Just to pick up the thread, I mean after the Civil War, the argument changes. It gets centered. But the union is still an experiment. Yeah. Massachusetts can still do their business differently than Colorado, differently than Vermont. And the jostling between the federal government and the state government doesn't end. It just gets a little quieter. Thank heavens. Cuz you don't want Unless you're a duck.

Ducks right after this break. Just before the break, we were talking about how this whole country, the experiment that is the United States of America, has left us jostling between the federal government and the state governments. And Kelsey Padet is about to tell us what all that has to do with ducks. So, it's spring of 1919, rural Missouri. You've got Frank Mallister, the attorney general of Missouri. He's out there with a bunch of friends and they're pointing their guns at the sky and shooting ducks, one after another after another.

And they end up shooting all in all 76. He knows he can do this because, you know, he's the attorney general of the state. He knows all the laws of the state and he knows it's his right to shoot whatever duck is flying in the sky of Missouri. It's the state law that you That's the state law. you can shoot the ducks. So, they're out there, they're having this great time. They're having this great hall. They've gotten all these ducks and then out of nowhere, Ray Holland, the federal game warden, shows up and he says, "No, you you can't do this. You can't shoot these birds.

They're not your property." McAllister says "You're wrong. This is a matter for the state. You know, it's our sovereignty. We never gave this over to the federal government." So, he must have been like, "I don't think the federal government has anything to say to me about a duck that was born here. At least I look I found it in the sky here. I shot it here. It died here. And I'm going to eat it here. So this is my duck. But the game warden says, "No, it's not your duck." And he arrests them all. Setting up a landmark confrontation.

Because here's what had happened. Two years earlier, the administration of Woodro Wilson was sitting there ringing their hands, thinking, "All these people are killing birds at like a non-stop pace. And if this didn't stop, you know, there was some concern at this period that we were gonna, you know, we were going to hunt these things to extinction. You know, we might not have any migratory birds at all. Problem is, the courts had already told the federal government, this is purely a local matter. You can't make federal hunting laws.

But then somebody in the administration has this really great idea or a really evil idea, depending on how you look at it. Maybe if we can get Canada to cooperate with us, we can do this by a treaty because there's this clause in the constitution that says treaties are the supreme law of the land. So maybe if we make an international treaty, then the states will have to go along. Frank Mallister, he sues and this goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. It lands before Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the more famous uh justices uh of the Supreme Court. and he basically says the treaty power is something that was given to the federal government. Don't limit this. This treaty is good and uh the treaty and the legislation are upheld.

So score one for the federal government. Score one for the federal government. And in there um you actually have Holmes talking about what the constitution is. He, you know, he was this what thrice wounded Civil War veteran and he actually invokes the language of of the Civil War saying, you know, we spent all this um sweat and blood to figure out what kind of nation we were going to become for birds. He invokes this language and basically says whatever we had debated in the past, you know, could the states regulate slavery without federal interference?

And Holmes says no. You know, that the side who fought that argument, they lost. all this talk about birds and you know state versus federal has everything to do with our poisoner Carolanne Bond. This case is the precedent upon which the federal government says that they can prosecute Caroline Bond because Oliver Wendel Holmes said that treaties are the supreme law of the land. I don't know. I I'm still I'm still of the mind that this is a sneaky bit of business by the by the federal government. It's not sneaky if you're a duck.

I I I feel I must speak on behalf of the ducks here. But no, forget your ducks. This is a Pennsylvania lady doing a Pennsylvania adultery in a Pennsylvania mailbox with a Pennsylvania mood. I mean, there's nothing. There's no birds flying overhead. This is an all Pennsylvania crime. But you know who wasn't doing a goddamn thing about that? Pennsylvania. Ex. Oh. Oh. But just to take your side for a second, Robert, please do that. If you really think about it, you know, and the way that Nick Rosenrance thinks about it, this is really troubling. This decision seems to say that theoretically the federal government's power is potentially infinite cuz like say John Kerry who's our secretary of state right now he goes and makes treaties say he's talking to Zimbabwe and we agree that we want to have a treaty about educational standards for children. So, we come home and we write a law that says, uh, all

children must go to public schools. But then that would outlaw homeschooling for children, which is a clear local state matter. But now suddenly the federal government has a power to do that. Just seems odd. The idea that uh the president, the Senate, and Zimbabwe can increase Congress's legislative powers. Here's how John Bellinger responds. Is it a theoretical possibility that the federal government might try to go and do that? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but there's no evidence that that happened here. There's no evidence that that has happened in the 100 years since Missouri versus Holland. He would say, look, consider the practical impact that a decision might have that would cut back on the president's treaty power. Other countries are already highly suspicious of the United States ability to deliver on its uh treaty commitments. Anyway, John would say, "Why would any other country want to

make a treaty with us if Kansas could back out at any time?" And like, how do you deal deal with a question like global warming if everybody is allowed to be left to their own devices? Well, that's a that's a tough one. I mean, the reality is that's Dean Hollis again. Um we live in in a globalized world whether it's you know dealing with things like climate change, terrorism, shipwrecks, cyber crime. Increasingly these are things we can no longer regulate just within a particular local community or a local society. And like on some level if we now find ourselves in this world where like I can get on the internet and spending hours and hours playing World of Warcraft with people in Yugoslavia and yet I've never really talked to my neighbor that's just down the street.

like why wouldn't we all have the same laws? But, you know, I think the flip side of your question is fine, the world is very interconnected, but are there still some things that are local? Are there some things left where we could say the federal government doesn't need to be able to reach this? And more than that, Nick says that having a bunch of different communities that are governed by different rules, all under the same nation, actually has a bunch of benefits. um competition. This the idea of laboratories of democracy that the 50 states will all try different things as to regulating guns near schools, as to regulating whatever it is. And maybe some state will hit on something brilliant and if they do, then it will spread and be replicated. And you know, that theory has been borne out in a lot of different areas. When the feds decide that they're going to come up with a one-sizefits-all national solution,

that's the end of the experiment. So, by the way, what what happened to Carolyn Bond? Well, she went to jail. She's in jail. She's still in jail. No, she's out now. So, she's she could go to court and find out what whether this thing was That's cool. She could show up. What about the the the poison? What What happened to her? The poison. She changed her name. She moved away. She's uncarchable now. Good. But I hope she moved to Zimbabwe. Is she still living with the guy that gave gave her the baby or No, no, no, no. You see, you see Carol, even though she went to jail for 6 years, she stayed with her husband. No way. Really? Yeah. She stayed with the man who had a baby with the other lady.

Yeah. That she tried to poison that lady about. She stayed with that guy. See, that's the thing. Law is interesting, but love, that's complicated. Love is greater than treaties. Thank you, Kelsey. Thank you, Kelsey Padet. Robert Crowd. Yeah, lot to hear again. So, a couple months after we released this episode, the Supreme Court did indeed make a decision in Carol Anne Bond's case. In a unanimous vote, the court decided that Carol did not violate the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. But you might remember that was not the question that court watchers were hoping the court would answer. The question they were hoping to get an answer on was can the federal government use a treaty to make laws about crimes that would normally be within a state's jurisdiction like poisoning. This decision did nothing to answer that question. So lucky for us, we can keep arguing about it for another hundred years. That's it for this

episode. Catch you next week. And in the meantime, please don't poison your friends. Hi, I'm Ben and I'm from San Diego, California. And here are the staff credits. Radio Lab was created by Jad Abomrod and is edited by Shoren Muer. Lulu Miller and Lexus Ner are our co-hosts. Dylan Keith is our director of sound design. Our staff includes Simon Adler, Jeremy Bloom, Becca Breler, W. Harry Fortuna, David Gable, Rebecca Lax, Maria Paw, Gutierreza, Kindu Nana Sunundon, Matt Keely, Annie Cuin, Alex Nissan, Sarakari, Sarah Sandat, and Isa Vita, Arian Wack, Pat Walters, Molly Webster, Jessica Young with help from Rebecca Ranch. Our fact checkers are Diane Kelly, Emily Kger, Anna Puel Mazini, and Natalie Middleton.

Hi, I'm Adena. I'm calling from Greensburg. Leadership support for Radio Lab science programming is provided by the Simons Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radio Lab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Sex, Ducks and the Founding Feud | Radiolab Podcast"?

Latif Nasser (Guest), Kelsey Badget (Guest), Duncan Hollis (Guest), Nick Rosen Cray (Guest), John Bellinger (Guest), Joseph J. Ellis (Guest), Robert Crowe (Guest).

What is "Sex, Ducks and the Founding Feud | Radiolab Podcast" about?

The content explores the ongoing power struggle between federal and state governments in the U.S. through a captivating narrative that highlights the complexities and scandals of constitutional law and federalism, all framed within an engaging story involving a betrayed spouse. It aims to make these intricate political topics relatable and interesting for the listener.

What is mentioned in this Radiolab episode?

13 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Caroline Bond, Nick Rosen, Kelsey Padet, Duncan Hollis, Joseph J. Ellis, Eric Bellinger. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Sex, Ducks and the Founding Feud | Radiolab Podcast"?

The episode runs 25 min; the transcript is about 4,418 words in 34 timestamped sections.

More from Radiolab

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.