Center for Policy Studies

The Constitution enshrines, explicitly or implicitly, the right to welcome immigrants -- a political and legal journey that continues to be challenging and complex. Though the American Republic is certainly more democratic than it once was, issues such as discrimination against immigrants (regardless of legal status), as well as the extent to which the President has the power to enact immigration policy such as DACA, continue to raise concerns. Recent Supreme Court decisions, like Trump v. Hawaii (2018) and DHS v. University of California (2020) are indeed thought-provoking. To what extent can the Executive Branch constitutionally enact or terminate immigration programs? The CWRU Constitution Discussion Roundtable is pleased to welcome Professor Ilya Somin and Mr. Charles Stimson to present their views regarding immigration law, equal protection, DACA, and separation of powers, and to answer questions from the students and the general audience.

Building a new state is hard. A governing apparatus must be built, a populace convinced (not always willingly!) and a sense of what the state is and how it should act must make it intelligible to both its agents and citizens or subjects. How a state is built shapes its future – and is shaped by the past. Professor Strauss shows how somewhat similar challenges and inherited understandings led to both commonalities and differences in how authority was consolidated on both sides of the Straits. That has lessons for understanding both China and state-building.

The USA was founded in pursuit of a more perfect union. In the Elections Clause (Art I, Section 4) and several amendments (XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI), the Constitution enshrines, explicitly or implicitly, the right to vote — a political and legal journey that continues to be challenging and complex. Though the American republic is certainly more democratic than it once was, issues such as voter ID laws, voter registration purges, and partisan gerrymandering have raised concerns about electoral fraud and discrimination against minorities. Recent Supreme Court decisions — Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — have failed to address key questions. How do states balance the integrity of elections and the individual right to vote? What role does the federal government have in preserving democracy throughout the USA?

The “yellow vest” demonstrations in France began in November as a response to a proposed gas tax increase. They quickly expanded to more violent protests against a wide range of perceived injustices perpetrated by non-responsive elites and the government of President Macron. The events fit a long French tradition of how to influence an unresponsive state. But many of the grievances, such as rising income inequality and worries about national identity, do not seem peculiarly French at all. So to what extent is the French conflict a harbinger for other countries, and to what extent is it peculiarly French? Patrick Chamorel earned both his university degree and Ph.D. from Sciences-Po in Paris and holds a Master in Public Law from the University of Paris. In the 1990s he served as a Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Industry and in the Policy Planning Office of the Prime Minister. But for more than two decades he has lived mainly in the United States, studying and teaching about U.S. politics, French politics, and transatlantic relations.

The social contract upon which the United States government is based obliges the government to protect its citizens,and this may restrict certain of their liberties. Thus, a balance must be struck between the government’s duty to provide protection and a person’s right to privacy. Pressure to eliminate the digital privacy of individuals is increasing. From the FBI’s efforts to decrypt the iPhone of the December 2015 San Bernardino mass shooter to Carpenter v. US (2017), the debate on privacy versus public safety needs to be addressed. How can the federal government strike a balance between privacy and public safety? What, if any, restrictions should be placed on the government when accessing private data during the course of a criminal investigation?

Universities that foster reasoned and thoughtful debate are vital to a thriving society. Since the passage of the Bill of Rights, Americans have enjoyed the right to free expression. Many forms of offensive speech are protected by the First Amendment, while obscenity and certain types of violent expression are not. Pressure to snuff out free speech is increasing. From Middlebury College to UC Berkeley, protests have erupted into violence, turning the “marketplace of ideas” into a danger area for freedom of expression. How can universities strike a balance between free expression and the need for campus peace and safety? What, if any, restrictions should be placed on student expression at a private institution? The Constitution Day Student Committee is pleased to welcome Susan Kruth, J.D. and Reginald Oh, J.D. to discuss these critical questions related to the First Amendment.

The first round of the 2017 French presidential election – the most unpredictable in decades — will take place on April 23. The unpopular incumbent, Francois Hollande, did not seek a second term, leaving five candidates chasing a place in the second-round runoff on May 7. With Hollande’s would-be Socialist successor Benoît Hamon on the margins, and main opposition Republican nominee Francois Fillon dogged by scandal, the race is wide open for the young maverick Emmanuel Macron – and for the National Front’s Marine Le Pen. Will France follow recent British and American election results down a populist, anti-immigrant path? This talk, to be held 48 hours after the first round returns, explores the issues and the stakes facing French voters in April, May and June, when parliamentary elections will decide who governs France for the next five years and whether the Fifth Republic is strong enough to withstand the combined challenges of populism and weakened parties.

American voters may worry that they have only two parties from which to choose. Israelis do not have that problem. Depending on how you count, the current Knesset (parliament) includes members of at least ten parties, representing a wide range of cleavages within the country. As the number of parties hints, Israeli politics can be rather confusing. So the Center for Policy Studies is pleased to host Professor Nadav Shelef for an overview of the diversity and dynamics of Israel’s politics. There are so many questions involving so many cleavages, such as Jews vs. non-Jews; ethnic cleavages within the Jewish population; how new and more recent immigrants have been incorporated into political competition; the relative weight of economic issues as opposed to identity and security issues; and the role of religion. This lecture will explain how Israeli politics work and explore the ways in which Israel’s political institutions , especially the election rules and the party system, interact with the two main axes of Israeli politics – territory and identity – to produce the vibrant and turbulent character of the Israeli political sphere.

The election of 2016 was rancorous even by the normal rough-and-tumble standards of U.S. politics. But the hostility between the candidates may be less important than the attitude towards the political system itself which the election revealed and encouraged. The election revealed deep distrust of the political system and “the media” by many voters. Any sense of shared values and so trust between the parties seemed to erode further. The nomination process showed an upheaval against the “establishment” in each party. An “outsider” President now claims support of “the people” against “a small group in our nation’s capital.” “Alternative facts” are promoted against media that should “keep its mouth shut.” Trump’s election may be seen as the culmination of a lengthy process of growing anger, distrust, and de-legitimation of institutions. What then, does it suggest about our government and politics going forward? As one of the core analysts for fivethirtyeight.com, Clare Malone contributed towards its sophisticated analysis of the election while it happened. Now she’ll discuss what it might mean. Clare Malone joined the staff of fivethirtyeight.com as Senior Political Writer after working on the editorial staff of The New Yorker and a web editor of The American Prospect. As a free-lance writer, her work has been published also in Harper’s, The New York Times, Elle, VICE, and The Daily Beast. She is a writer and transplant to Brooklyn by way of Washington, D.C.; Doha, Qatar; and Cleveland, Ohio.

The possession and use of marijuana have been illegal at the federal level since the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Many states initially followed suit with similar legislation. But over the past twenty years there has been an increasing number of challenges to marijuana prohibition. Since 1996, when California legalized medical use of marijuana through Proposition 215, 23 other states have done the same despite federal law. Four of those states have legalized its recreational use as well. Opinion polls suggest a growing majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use. Jonathan H. Adler, J.D. is the author or editor of seven books, including Business and the Roberts Court (Oxford University Press, 2016) and Rebuilding the Ark: New Perspectives on Endangered Species Act Reform (AEI Press, 2011). His numerous articles have appeared in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, the Supreme Court Economic Review, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. He has testified before Congress a dozen times, and his work has been cited by The U.S. Supreme Court. A 2016 study identified Professor Adler as the most-cited legal academic in administrative and environmental law under age 50. Brannon P. Denning, J.D. has written on the commerce clause and the dormant commerce clause, judicial and executive branch appointments, the constitutional amendment process, foreign affairs and the U.S. Constitution, and on the Second Amendment. He collaborated with Boris I. Bittker, Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale, on The Regulation of Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce (Aspen Law and Business 1999) and is sole author of the second edition. He also edited Gun Control and Gun Rights: A Reader and Guide (NYU Press, 2002), which addresses aspects of firearms regulation and is the only book of its kind designed for undergraduate use. The Constitution Day Committee welcomes Brannon Denning and Jonathan Adler to discuss significant questions regarding marijuana legalization and pertinent federalism issues. In discussing the current controversy over marijuana legalization, the forum will address a long-standing debate in American history: states’ vs. federal rights.

2015 was a tumultuous year for world politics. China built islands in the South China Sea and devalued its currency. Nations struck a deal on climate change and Iran’s nuclear program. The EU rebuffed Greece’s demands for austerity relief, faced a wave of refugees and was struck by ISIS terrorism. Russia intervened in Syria and Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Then there was North Korea… 2016 may not even have as much good news. How will world affairs influence the U.S. election, what challenges will the next president face, and how is U.S. policy likely to differ depending on who wins? Jim Lindsay combines rare expertise on international issues, the U.S. foreign policy process, and electoral politics. His own research has covered topics from the George W. Bush revolution in foreign policy to how Congress influenced nuclear weapons policy, and he tracks events in his blog, The Water’s Edge. Join us for a wide-ranging review and discussion.

After years of relative stability – 40 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the House of Representatives, followed by 12 years of Republican control – congressional elections saw dramatic swings in 2006, 2010, and 2014. The conditions for elections have also changed in highly publicized ways. The Supreme Court”s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Paul Herrnson writes, meant that, “the 2010 congressional elections ushered in a new era of interest group participation in federal elections.” At the same time campaign communication and finance have been transformed through new uses of the internet; and the terrain of elections altered through reapportionment and the underlying, geographic “partisan sort” of the country. In these senses there may be a new politics of congressional elections. Yet how significant are these changes? Do they clearly favor one party or the other, or some groups over others? What are the prospects for reforms such as different methods of redistricting, or changes in campaign finance? What difference might any reforms make? Paul Herrnson is easily one of the nation’s leading experts on our topic. The 7th edition of his textbook, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, will be released this Fall. He is also an influential scholar of interest groups, having most recently co-edited Interest Groups Unleashed (2013) with Christopher Deering and Clyde Wilcox. Join us to hear about the latest and best scholarship on the contest to control the “first branch” of the United States government.

In the 1980s the United States government made negotiation and enforcement of strong “intellectual property” rights one of the guiding principles of its foreign policy. As industries such as steel and autos lost market share to competition from Japan and other east Asian nations such as Korea, massive trade deficits led to calls for protectionist policies. In order to resist those calls, policy-makers argued that the U.S. had a comparative advantage in innovative newer industries, such as pharmaceuticals and cultural products, which would generate exports and high-value-added jobs to replace the jobs being lost in “old industries.” But that required that innovation not be copied easily. So protecting the intellectual property from innovation became a rallying cry for policy-makers of both parties. The Clinton administration especially promoted this view as part of its “New Democrat” economic approach. And politicians were enthusiastically and in some cases financially supported by the industries which would have their profits protected if foreign competition were prevented. As the U.S. government worked to globalize its intellectual property rules, it was supported by major corporations and in many cases governments from developed nations. The campaign proceeded through the WTO, the GATT, and many other venues. It was highlighted by the 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), but TRIPS, as Susan Sell argues, in retrospect was only a step in a much more extensive series of restrictions that have been achieved in a series of forums since. Yet the campaign to strengthen intellectual “property rights” – and the attendant profits – has also met significant checks. The most substantial involved access to life-saving pharmaceuticals, symbolized by medications for AIDS. In 2001 the WTO Doha Declaration underscored countries’ rights to put public health before patents. In 2012, legislation to restrict downloading, streaming, and file-sharing on the internet was breezing through Congress, until it was suddenly swamped by a tidal wave of net-based protest. The newest battle in the now nearly Thirty-Years War about intellectual property involves the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What might we learn from the past about what could happen next? To help us understand the battle and the war, we will be joined by Professor Susan Sell, one of the leading scholars of the conflict. Her works on the topic include Power and Ideas: North-South Politics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust (1998); Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights (2003); Intellectual Property Rights: a Critical History (with Christopher May, 2005) and dozens of articles and book chapters. Private Power, Public Law has been issued in both Chinese and Korean-language editions. Join us as she discusses the defeat of the 2012 legislation in the “revenge of the nerds,” other key events, and the current prospects.

In 2010, the Center for Public Integrity reported that victims of sexual misconduct on campus face “a frustrating search for justice.” On April 4, 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a guidance document about sexual violence on campuses, setting standards for what universities must do in order to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972’s prohibition of sex discrimination in education. In the years that followed, students in many universities brought complaints against their institutions for failing to respond appropriately to reported rapes. The OCR itself initiated many more investigations; as of August 2015, 129 universities, including many of the most prominent in the country, were under investigation. Others have already agreed to settlements. As universities have adopted policies in the name of meeting the OCR’s guidance, however, a powerful backlash has arisen. In a few highly publicized cases, accusations have been rebutted by later evidence. The policies adopted by some universities have been sharply criticized by faculty, most prominently at both Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, where large numbers of professors of law raised concerns about due process for accused students. Some of the critics have been among the best known feminist and women’s rights scholars in the country. How can justice and fairness best be served when a person claims to be sexually victimized by a fellow member of a university community? What is the proper role of the university? How can the rights of victim and accused be not just balanced but maintained? The question is roiling campuses across the country. Ours is not the only campus where it is the topic for the 2015 Constitution Day program. We are very glad to welcome two exceedingly qualified speakers to discuss the topic. Howard Kallem J.D. served for nineteen years in the D.C. Regional Office of the Office for Civil Rights, 15 of them as chief regional attorney, before becoming Title IX Compliance Coordinator at the University of North Carolina in 2013 and then Director of Title IX Compliance at Duke University in 2014. Before joining the OCR, he served for 14 years with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Few speakers have similar standing and experience to address the reasons for the OCR’s policy and universities’ responses. Cynthia Grant Bowman, J.D., Ph.D., is the Dorothea S. Clarke Professor of Law at Cornell University. She was Professor of Law and Gender Studies at Northwestern University before joining the faculty at Cornell. She has published widely on issues involving the law and women, including women in the legal profession, sexual harassment, and legal remedies for adult survivors of childhood sex abuse. She also published one of the earliest texts on feminist legal theory, Feminist Jurisprudence, which is now in its fourth edition with co-authors. Few speakers have as much standing from which to criticize the policy and its implementation.

When U.S. government democracy assistance was launched three decades ago, it fostered real change, as in Poland and Chile, by supporting dissidents. Since then, democracy promotion has grown into an international industry. But assistance from both the U.S. and other donors normally finances programs that are not in the least threatening to authoritarian regimes. Instead, it finances technical assistance programs that considerable evidence suggests are ineffective. Or, it focuses on quantitative outcomes, such as the number of women in parliament, on which it is easy to show success but that do not threaten autocratic governments. Professor Bush argues that these results fit the incentives for organizations that must have permission to operate in countries in order to be funded, and that must compete with each other for donor support. In short, the rise of a "Democracy Establishment" has "tamed" democracy promotion. Professor Bush's talk will be based on the research for her new book with Cambridge University Press, The Taming of Democracy Assistance: Why Democracy Promotion Does Not Confront Dictators. Dr. Bush earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from Princeton University and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the International Security Program of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? In his award-winning book, Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America, Professor McGuire shows that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. His conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.

From Rolling Stone to The Christian Science Monitor; WKYC Cleveland to CWRU’s Observer, reports tell us that heroin has become more common and a major killer. Cory Monteith and Philip Seymour Hoffman are highly publicized, “sentinel” cases. But overdoses killed 195 people in Cuyahoga County in 2013 – up from 40 in 2007, and more than the deaths from homicide or vehicle accidents. Heroin use is both personal and social. Lee Hoffer, Associate Professor of Anthropology, studies the social world of illicit drug use. Among his works is Junkie Business: The Evolution and Operation of a Heroin Dealing Network. Associate Professor of English Michael Clune’s searing memoir of his own addiction, White Out: The Secret Life of Heroin, was chosen as one of the best books of 2013 by The New Yorker and NPR’s On Point. Join them for a broad discussion of the puzzles and issues raised by heroin’s presence in modern life.

The 2014 Case Western Reserve University Constitution Day Student Committee welcomed Professor James Pfiffner of George Mason University to discuss the historical, political, and constitutional evolution of presidential power in America. From sweeping internal surveillance to aggressive drone strikes, the actions of the executive bear far-reaching domestic and international consequences. This forum traces the early foundations of the presidency and explores the controversy surrounding its expansion and recent constitutional challenges.

To advocates like Tom Friedman, “Globalization” is a wonderful and natural process to which people need to adjust. To some critics, it is a dangerous pattern that needs to be resisted through public authority. And to others it is a process that is not natural at all, but encouraged by public policy that serves some interests at the expense of others. If globalization were governed, how would that work, and in whose interest? Are there, in fact, efforts to govern aspects of globalization, such as international finance or global environmental threats, now? If so, how do or can they work, in the absence of world government? Tony Porter is one of the world’s leading scholars of business regulation and global governance, especially financial regulation and processes of hybrid public/private rule-making that cross international borders. Some of his recent research has studied creation of transnational rules produced by business associations and international standard-setting bodies; the Financial Stability Board created to coordinate central banks and national financial regulators in the wake of the financial crisis; and influences on international elites from processes such as OECD peer reviews of “best practices” in national governance. Professor Porter’s newest edited volume, Transnational Financial Regulation after the Crisis (Routledge), includes a chapter by our own Professor Lavelle and will be released shortly before his visit to CWRU.

The 2013 Case Western Reserve University Constitution Day Student Committee welcomed Professor Nelson Lund and Professor Lawrence Rosenthal to campus to discuss the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the wake of mass shootings across the country, recent federal and state bills have attempted to limit an individual's ability to own or buy certain kinds of weapons. This program furthers a national conversation over the balance between individual rights and domestic security.

When an incumbent is running, presidential elections are primarily – normally – referenda on the incumbent’s performance. Knowing this, the logical incentive for the out-party is to try to ensure that the incumbent president fails. Some observers believe congressional Republicans and their allies outside Congress have followed this logic over the past four years. Yet discussions of this pattern often treat it with surprise – as if partisanship in the past was not so extreme. Republicans would reply that the charge itself is extreme partisanship. Either way, there is a sense that partisan conflict has burst some bounds. If so, what does that tell us about what Presidents can accomplish? Would the answer be the same for a President Romney as for President Obama? The Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University was pleased to welcome one of the nation’s leading scholars of the Presidency to discuss one of the most basic issues about its future. There is good reason to believe the U.S. has a new party system. How can the Presidency fit into it, with what consequences?

Over the past decade, disputes about intellectual property and piracy on the internet have become steadily more prominent. In October 2011, the House Judiciary Committee introduced the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). With its bipartisan sponsors, the bill proposed anti-piracy measures allowing the U.S. Department of Justice and intellectual property owners to exercise control over websites facilitating copyright infringement. In the Senate, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) introduced additional methods for the government and copyright holders to protect against counterfeit goods domestically and abroad. Given protests and an unprecedented internet blackout, voting on the bills was suspended. However, a third bill intended to protect against cyber threats, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), passed in the House of Representatives in April 2012. The Constitution Day 2012 forum examined constitutional questions raised by internet piracy, proposed legislation to regulate the internet, copyright law, and other issues related to intellectual property. It includes perspectives from the speakers, questions from a CWRU student panel, and audience participation.

Anyone who has watched the bitter competition between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress in recent years, or the fight to win the Republican nomination for President this year, might be wondering how to explain the current political party system in the United States. It looks like a period of deep ideological cleavages between the parties, and pretty strict enforcement of some form of ideological correctness at least in one of them. Yet for decades or even centuries scholars of politics have argued that ideological divisions were relatively weak in our elections and legislative process. What is happening, and what has happened? This may be the central question for understanding the current state of American politics. So it will be a special pleasure to welcome to campus, on April 17, one of the leading and most original scholars of both parties and public opinion in the country, John Zaller.

Perhaps no person in the 20th century affected more people or had a greater long-term impact on world history than Deng Xiaoping. Drawing from his latest book, Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China, award-winning social scientist Ezra Vogel argues that the economic reforms instituted by the Chinese leader resulted in more people rising out of poverty than in any other period. Presiding over unprecedented economic expansion and engagement with the West, but also the authoritarian crackdown in Tiananmen Square, Deng was single-minded in his drive to modernize his county. Called "a masterful new history of China's reform era" by the Washington Post, Vogel's 2011 accounting of the parallel rise of Deng and the world's second-biggest economy provides the basis of the lecture.

One aspect of the “Rise of China” that is causing anxiety among foreign policy specialists and other people looking for something to be anxious about involves China’s developing relations in what used to be called the third world. As part of China’s “rise,” its state and businesses have become increasingly involved in both commercial and development activities. There is a lot of speculation about whether China is challenging the existing norms of international economics and politics. Dr. Strauss co-edited a special issue of The China Quarterly about China and Africa, and she and colleagues will be publishing an issue about China and Latin America in March. Her talk will focus on how the Chinese think about their engagement in Latin America, and in particular differences in how Chinese actors are engaging with small countries like Peru, as compared to another “rising” state and economy, Brazil. Dr. Strauss served as editor of The China Quarterly, the premier academic journal about China, from 2002 – 2011. She brings to her currrent work not only deep knowledge of China but close attention to how the relationship works from the other side, from Latin America.

A variety of political and legal institutions have been established over time to manage the issue of climate change at the global level, mostly centered on the UN. These institutions have varied in terms of the nature and depth of obligations they impose on states. The shallow and nonbinding Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) was followed by the more legalized Kyoto Protocol, which in turn is being replaced by a more decentralized and flexible approach. Professor Thompson will describe these changes and offer an explanation for the design and evolution of climate institutions from the perspective of political and environmental effectiveness. He will also offer policy recommendations based on current problems in the regime and the political realities exposed by ongoing negotiations.

Universities are anomalous institutions – from early days “corporations” but not businesses; with public purposes but not governments. In theory at least, they have been truly “mission-driven,” with their missions being teaching and research, and a major role in governance for the carriers of that mission, the faculty. In his new book The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, Ben Ginsberg argues that new patterns of governance threaten universities’ missions. Ideas about management have been imposed without any attention to whether they make sense for the university context (never mind whether they actually work in the fields from which they’re imported). “Strategic planning” comes to mind. Administrative structures are created and then their leaders – ‘deanlets” and “deanlings”- generate work to justify their existence. Activities that seem to faculty as diversions from their missions are justified as serving student needs or required by government mandates. But Dr. Ginsberg argues they are better understood as results of a natural human pursuit of power – and of the faculty not always being willing to insist that it take on the hard work of governance. It’s a controversial argument in the best of ways: it raises important questions and offers ideas that require discussion.

The Center for Policy Studies is proud to present a forum on the national debate concerning the size of the current federal budget deficit. Our panel of distinguished guests was moderated by Case Western Reserve University Associate Professor of Economics Mark Votruba, Ph.D. and features two very prominent budget experts Dean Baker, Ph.D. and Joshua B. Gordon, Ph.D., who will provide their expert analysis and observations on some of the the big issues surrounding the debate over the federal budget deficit.

Although China has some of the world’s lowest level of foreign debt and official government debt, the Chinese government and state owned banks and enterprises actually owe an enormous amount of debt to domestic financial institutions and households. In this presentation, Victor Shih, Associate Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University, first catalogs the different segments of debt owed by the Chinese government and related entities. He then examines the claimants on this debt and then discusses some implications for future public policies in China.

Professor Jason Brownlee of the University of Texas political science department examines the historical events over the past thirty years that led up to the January 25th revolution in Egypt. Professor Brownlee also examines the role the Unites States played in the historical events that led to the January 25th revolution in Egypt.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. As a result, same-sex couples are barred from receiving federal benefits conferred upon married couples, and no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages granted by another state. On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration had determined DOMA to be unconstitutional, and that the Justice Department would no longer provide legal defense for the law. Meanwhile, many states have adopted measures designed to forbid same-sex marriage. This year's Constitution Day program will examine the issues raised by DOMA, state regulations, civil unions, polygamy, and other constitutional issues related to marriage.

Lauren MacLean discusses the divergent paths of democratization in neighboring Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. Why has Ghana turned over power to the opposition in peaceful, competitive elections while Cote d’Ivoire has been wracked with ethno-regional civil war? Rather than focus on the roles of international mediators and national political elites, she takes us to rural villages in very similar regions on either side of the border for an analysis of everyday politics at the grassroots. Based on eighteen months of survey research and in-depth interviews at the village level, her findings point to the key role of changing informal institutions of reciprocity (that is, the way village residents exchange help with their families, friends and neighbors) in shaping differences in indigenous notions of citizenship and political participation in neighboring Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire.