Podcasts about american constitutional law

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. of Aquinas 101, Godsplaining, and Pints with Aquinas for an off-campus conversation with Prof. Phillip Muñoz about his new book, "Religious Liberty and the American Founding." Religious Liberty and the American Founding w/ Fr. Gregory Pine (Off-Campus Conversations) For more information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org. About the Speaker: Vincent Phillip Muñoz is Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. He is the Founding Director of ND's Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government. Under his leadership the programs have raised over $16,500,000 in grants, gifts, and pledges. Dr. Muñoz writes and teaches across the fields of constitutional law, American politics, and political philosophy with a focus on religious liberty and the American Founding. He won a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship to support his forthcoming book, Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses, which will be published by the University of Chicago Press in the summer of 2022. Articles related the project have appeared in American Political Science Review, The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Notre Dame Law Review, American Political Thought, and the University of Pennsylvania's Journal of Constitutional Law. His first book, God and the Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson (Cambridge University Press, 2009) won the Hubert Morken Award from the American Political Science Association for the best publication on religion and politics in 2009 and 2010. His First Amendment church-state case reader, Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court: The Essential Cases and Documents (Rowman & Littlefield) was first published in 2013 (revised edition, 2015) and is being used at Notre Dame and other leading universities. In 2019, he joined the editorial team of American Constitutional Law (11th edition, Routledge, 2020), the leading constitutional law casebooks designed for undergraduate instruction. His scholarship has been cited numerous times in church-state Supreme Court opinions, most recently by Justice Alito in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) and by both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in Espinoza v. Montana (2020). An award-winning teacher and a popular lecturer, Dr. Muñoz has spoken at nearly 75 colleges and universities in the past several years. He received his B.A. at Claremont McKenna College, his M.A. at Boston College, and his Ph.D. at Claremont Graduate School.

Today's TRP guest is the eminent First Amendment legal scholar, Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Ph.D.. He is the Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science (and Law at the Law School) at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. Dr. Munoz is the author of such books as "God and The Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson" (Cambridge University Press), editor (with my dissertation Chair Ralph Rossum) of "American Constitutional Law vol. 1 The Structure of Government" and "American Constitutional Law vol. 2 The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments" (Routledge), "Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court" (Roman and Littlefield), and his latest published by the University of Chicago Press, and the subject of our time together, "Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses" . Please support your local bookshop. The Republican Professor is a pro-getting-a-handle-on-the-Bill-of-Rights, pro-understanding-correctly-the-First-Amendment-religion-clauses podcast. Therefore, welcome Dr. Phil Munoz of Notre Dame ! In order to keep this podcast running smoothly, please consider giving generously to support the careful analysis and dissemination of this material. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: The Republican Professor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Special guest Suzette Malveaux, Moses Lasky Professor of Law at the University of Colorado School of Law, and the Director of the Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law. Hosted by Scott Dodson.

Welcome to the season 3 premiere of Lady Justice: Women of the Court. In honor of Constitution Day, the Lady Justices welcome special guest and author of 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law Cheif Judge Jeffery S. Sutton of the 6th Circuit.    Follow the link below to get your copy of Cheif Judge Sutton's book 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. https://www.amazon.com/51-Imperfect-Solutions-American-Constitutional/dp/0190088818/ref=asc_df_0190088818/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=459770433743&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5838969292287082109&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9025848&hvtargid=pla-972238576702&psc=1

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Everything in law and politics, including individual rights, comes back to divisions of power and the evergreen question: Who decides? Who wins the disputes of the day often turns on who decides them. And our acceptance of the resolution of those disputes often turns on who the decision maker is-because it reveals who governs us. In Who Decides?: States As Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford UP, 2021), the influential US Appellate Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton focuses on the constitutional structure of the American states to answer the question of who should decide the key questions of public policy today. By concentrating on the role of governmental structure in shaping power across the 50 American states, Sutton develops a powerful explanation of American constitutional law, in all of its variety, as opposed to just federal constitutional law. As in his earlier book, 51 Imperfect Solutions, which looked at how American federalism allowed the states to serve as laboratories of innovation for protecting individual liberty and property rights, Sutton compares state-level governments with the federal government and draws numerous insights from the comparisons. Instead of focusing on individual rights, however, he focuses on structure, while continuing to develop some of the core themes of his previous book. An illuminating and essential sequel to his earlier work on the nature of American federalism, Who Decides makes the case that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of government. Taken together, both books reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has the answers to our vexing constitutional questions. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association.

Norm opens the second hour discussing a recent headline in the Connecticut legal community, the matter involving lawyer Carl Ferraro of Norwalk, Connecticut. In particular, Mr. Ferraro has been charged with 8 counts of first-degree larceny for the misappropriate of millions in client funds from the law firm trust account.  One feature of this prosecution that bugs Norm is the court's requiring Mr. Ferraro to post a $2M bond in order to be granted pre-trial release. The Connecticut constitution is unique in that it grants Connecticut's citizens the right to a reasonable bond. Norm compares this bond assessment to one in connection with his representation of another client. What does a 'reasonable bond' mean? The result of not knowing that standard inures exclusively to the detriment of criminal defendants who are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  Norm then pivots to President Biden's recent comments about the Supreme Court of the United States's decision in Dobbs and the troubling implications of the executive branch undermining the legitimacy of the Court through responsive executive action. The popularity or lack thereof of the decision notwithstanding, President Biden's comments are more than a legal infirmity; they reflect a deference to political bias at the expense of our constitutional system.  Later historians will come to know the fourth wave of American Constitutional law by the emergence of the 'Public Health State.' Norm breaks down the first three waves, and then discusses the troubling authoritarian trend of the fourth. What is federalism? What is the separation of powers?  American government is premised on mechanisms that work in concert to diffuse power. Is a declining civics literacy blinding us to the growing consolidation of power we have seen on the back of the pandemic? Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

Norm opens the second hour discussing a recent headline in the Connecticut legal community, the matter involving lawyer Carl Ferraro of Norwalk, Connecticut. In particular, Mr. Ferraro has been charged with 8 counts of first-degree larceny for the misappropriate of millions in client funds from the law firm trust account.  One feature of this prosecution that bugs Norm is the court's requiring Mr. Ferraro to post a $2M bond in order to be granted pre-trial release. The Connecticut constitution is unique in that it grants Connecticut's citizens the right to a reasonable bond. Norm compares this bond assessment to one in connection with his representation of another client. What does a 'reasonable bond' mean? The result of not knowing that standard inures exclusively to the detriment of criminal defendants who are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  Norm then pivots to President Biden's recent comments about the Supreme Court of the United States's decision in Dobbs and the troubling implications of the executive branch undermining the legitimacy of the Court through responsive executive action. The popularity or lack thereof of the decision notwithstanding, President Biden's comments are more than a legal infirmity; they reflect a deference to political bias at the expense of our constitutional system.  Later historians will come to know the fourth wave of American Constitutional law by the emergence of the 'Public Health State.' Norm breaks down the first three waves, and then discusses the troubling authoritarian trend of the fourth. What is federalism? What is the separation of powers?  American government is premised on mechanisms that work in concert to diffuse power. Is a declining civics literacy blinding us to the growing consolidation of power we have seen on the back of the pandemic? Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

It's a special edition of Advisory Opinions as David and Sarah talk to Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The discussion ranges far and wide but includes a focus on a subject we don't talk enough about: state constitutional law. Show Notes:-“51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law” by Judge Jeffrey Sutton-“Who Decides?: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation” by Judge Jeffrey Sutton-Revisionist History: “The Tortoise and the Hare”

Join our warm conversation with our distinguished guest, the Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College, part of The Claremont Colleges Consortium, Dr. Ralph Rossum, Ph.D. Professor Rossum taught the American Founding with the late Antonin Scalia, and has a best-selling two-volume Constitutional Law textbook called American Constitutional Law (with Alan Tarr) which is in its at least 11th Edition as of this recording. We discuss his powerful book "Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy" which is available at your local book dealer. Dr. Rossum also takes some time to recount a few charming anecdotes of Antonin Scalia and of his supervisor at the University of Chicago, the late scholar of the American Founding (especially the Anti-Federalists), Dr. Herbert J. Storing, Ph.D. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Founding, pro-correctly-contemplating-American-Constitutional-Law, pro-charming-anecdotes-of-great-scholars-and-Justices-of-the-Supreme-Court podcast. Therefore, welcome Ralph Rossum. The Republican Professor podcast is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

The Honorable Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, joined the show to discuss his new book, Who Decides? States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation.The book comes as a sequel to his 2018 book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. Astute listeners will notice an uncanny similarity between both book covers and my own book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again.Both books broadly make a case for states to take back powers from the federal government. But where my book emphasized the virtues of experimentation at the policy level, Sutton's books inspect the balance of powers between federal and state judiciaries. The cover of his book, arranging the outlines of each state under the capitol rotunda, foreshadows his argument that federal courts have assumed too much power to decide what count as constitutional rights.While this may sound like a classic argument for judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches, Sutton defends a more “activistic” approach to judging at the state level. He points out that the true precedent for judicial review was not Marbury v. Madison, as we all learned in high school civics, but in the many cases preceding it in the states that established the judiciary's role in deciding which law should apply: the “higher” law of the state constitution, or the laws passed by the legislature.Today, as the Supreme Court increasingly weighs in on partisan topics like vaccine mandates, it's especially important that we frame the issue correctly: it's not a question of how we or the judges feel personally about the outcome, but about who decides.

In September of 2021, Senate Bill 8 passed in the state of Texas. With it, some of the most restrictive abortion regulations in the country were enacted into law, going against the constitutional rights established in the landmark Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. Such a critical legal interpretation can prompt review of the perennial question: who should get to decide on major questions of public policy today — the federal government, or state courts and state constitutions? The Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton responded to the question in his book, Who Decides? States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation. While it is the states' responsibility to uphold the federal constitution, interpretations vary from state to state; is there danger in the disparities? Judge Sutton argued that for all its variety, American Constitutional Law should account for both the roles of state and federal courts and constitutions together when it comes to assessing the right balance of power. Sutton reminded us that our nuanced and ever-evolving systems must be deeply considered by those who interpret the law, and they must resist the assumption that the Supreme Court holds all the answers to our most complex constitutional questions. After all, the answer to the evergreen question of “who decides” ultimately reveals who governs us. The Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Sutton was a partner with the law firm of Jones Day and served as State Solicitor of the State of Ohio. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Ret.), the Honorable Antonin Scalia, and the Honorable Thomas J. Meskill. In addition to Who Decides: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation, he is the author of 51 Imperfect Solutions. Sen. Joe Nguyen was born in White Center, raised in Burien, and currently lives in West Seattle. His experiences growing up in an immigrant community, as the son of Vietnamese refugees and raised by a single mother, inform much of his service today. Sen. Nguyen is the vice-chair of the Senate Human Services, Reentry & Rehabilitation Committee, and a member of the Transportation Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Environment, Energy & Technology Committee. Buy the Book: Who Decides?: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Hardcover) from Third Place Books Presented by Town Hall Seattle and Henry M. Jackson Foundation.

State constitutions influenced the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and continue to shape constitutional rights today. The Virginia Constitution of 1776 in particular influenced both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen joined experts for a two-part conversation on state constitutions. First, Rosen was joined by A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia. Professor Howard is an expert on the Virginia Constitution of 1776 and Virginia's current constitution, which he helped draft and is commemorating its 50th anniversary this year. Rosen was then joined by two experts on state constitutions: Judge Jeffrey Sutton, author of 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, and professor Emily Zackin, author of Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places: Why State Constitutions Contain America's Positive Rights.  This panel was streamed live on June 28, 2021.  If you're interested in learning more about state constitutions, check out some of our past programs including this Town Hall program featuring Judge Jeffrey Sutton, “Why State Constitutions Matter.” Register for our 2021 Annual Supreme Court Review on July 8 at constitutioncenter.org/debate. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

When representing clients, attorneys often think of constitutional rights only in terms of the federal constitution. But this narrow focus leaves out the 50 state constitutions, which can offer different and more protective rights than their federal counterpart. From his experience as Ohio Solicitor General through his time on the 6th Circuit, Judge Jeffrey Sutton has seen the impact that state constitutions can have on the rule of law. In his 2018 book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, Judge Sutton outlined the ways raising state constitutional claims can improve a client's odds of success and provide greater protection of rights. In this episode, Judge Sutton joins Jody Sanders and Todd Smith to discuss considerations and strategies for parties who might otherwise forgo state constitutional claims. He also reflects on his time as a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia—a phase of his career that influenced his later endeavors and his love of the law.Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here’s How »Join the Texas Appellate Law Podcast Community today:appealsplus.comTwitterFacebookLinkedInYouTube

Donald Trump routinely throws around the "treason" accusation, always wrongly. But when viewing his actions since election day, I think the charge sticks to him! I know we're not officially at war, but he is guilty of the crime of betraying his country, which is the definition of "treasonous". Some are saying he's guilty of sedition, rather than treason. I thought it was time to call in an expert. So I'm joined today by Carlton F.W. Larson. Larson is Professor of Law at US/Davis, where he teaches American Constitutional Law and legal history. He's known as the preeminent experts on the subject of treason. In fact, his new book is called "On Treason: A Citizen's Guide to the Law. Professor Larson joins us at the beginning of the show. And since today marks the 20th anniversary of the day a judge in Kazakhstan granted my adoption and tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of us leaving the orphanage together, I shared a little back story, and a video about our journey done by Gayle King. It's all posted at http://nicolesandler.com/11-20-20

Judge Jeffrey Sutton talks with David F. Levi about his book 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law and the role of state courts in protecting personal rights.

Behind-the-Scenes Look at Russia's Failed Transition to DemocracyGuest: Andrei Kozyrev, former Russian Foreign Minister, Author of “The Fire Bird: The Elusive Fate of Russian Democracy”It's hard to believe just how promising relations were between the US and Russia in the early 1990s. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Boris Yelstin actually signed an agreement at the time declaring that “from now on, the relationship will be characterized by friendship and partnership.” So how did we end up in what Andrei Kozyrev calls a “renewed Cold War”? Kozyrev explains in his new memoir called “The Fire Bird.” He was a chief advocate for democracy in Russia and better relations with the West. For several years Kozyrev served as foreign minister to Yelstin, who was Russia's first publicly-elected president. California Passes Law That Affects Contract WorkersGuest: Annette Rivero, an Organizer of Gig Workers Rising and Driver for Uber and LyftWhat happens in California often spreads to the rest of the country, which is why a new law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom last week is of such interest nationally. It aims to restrict when companies can classify a worker as an independent contractor and void paying minimum wage or benefits. Uber and Lyft were particular targets of the California law and both companies are now working to get a referendum on the ballot in that would overturn it. U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Gerrymandering Prevention to the StatesGuest: Joshua Douglas, Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky North Carolina lawmakers just redrew their state's district maps after a North Carolina court rules that the maps had been created to favor Republicans –a process called gerrymandering. The state judges made it clear their ruling was based in the state's constitution and not politics. But can voting maps ever not be based in politics when politicians are the ones who drawn them? Indonesian Capital is Sinking, Where is it Going to Go?Guest: Luca Tacconi  Stores Like Wal-Mart are Entering the Gun Control DebateGuest: Adam Winkler, J.D., Specialist in American Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court, and Gun Policy at UCLA. Author of “We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights” and “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America”After the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart last month, the company became the latest –and largest–retailer in the country to discourage its customers from openly carrying guns in its stores. Over the years, Target, Starbucks, Chipotle and Costco have implemented similar policies. And this month, Walgreens, CVS, Kroger and some other grocery chains joined the list. Is it even legal for a company to as its customers to leave their guns home when the 2ndAmendment protects the right to bear arms? In School, It's the Mindset That MattersGuest: David Yeager, Associate Professor of Psychology at The University of Texas at AustinWhat if one hour at the start of freshman year could set your child up for more success in high school? It's an online program in two thirty-minute sessions, and when researchers tested it on more than 12,000 students it seemed to help both the struggling students and the high-achievers.

“The Constitution must be adapted to the problems of each generation,” writes Erwin Chemerisnky, “we are not living in the world of 1787 and should not pretend that the choices for that time can guide ours today.” Does that sentence read to you as obvious or offensive? Either way, it’s at the core of the constitutional debate between the left and the right — a debate the left all too often cedes to the right through disinterest. Chemerinsky is trying to change that. He’s the dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Law, a decorated constitutional scholar and lawyer, and the author of We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century. At the core of Chemerinsky’s vision is the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted through the lens of the preamble: a crucial statement of intent, and one that establishes the US Constitution as one of the most adaptive and glitteringly progressive founding documents in the world. This is a conversation about both direct questions of constitutional interpretation and the meta-questions of constitutional debate in a polarized age. What, for instance, does it mean that so much turned on Mitch McConnell’s blockade against Merrick Garland? Is this just a legal debating club disguising the exercise of raw power? What should progressive constitutionalists make of proposals to expand the Supreme Court? What would be different today if Hillary Clinton had filled Scalia’s seat? Book recommendations: Simple Justice by Richard Kluger (1975) American Constitutional Law by Larry Tribe The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay The Boys of Summer by Roger Kahn The Chosen by Chaim Potok Want to contact the show? Reach out at ezrakleinshow@vox.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Engineer: Amy Browne What do those words mean: republic and democracy? What do people mean when they say, “We’re not a democracy; we’re a republic,” in the context of different policy debates. Is there a particular subtext implicating minority rights, even minority rule, and possibly states’ rights and federalism? Guests : Lance Dutson, a Republican communications consultant and a columnist for the Bangor Daily News. lancedutson.bangordailynews.com/about/ Joseph Reisert, Associate Professor of American Constitutional Law at Colby College www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jrreiser/  To learn more about this topic: Democracy or Republic?, Jay Cost in Nationa Review September, 2018. Sorry, Liberals, But America Is Not A Democracy, And It’s Better That Way,, Clifford Humphrey in The Federalist February, 2018. Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation’s Values Dana Goldstein in The New York Times April, 2019. Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy? Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, at The Washington Post May, 2015. You Say Democracy, I Say Republic, Jonathan Bernstein in Bloomberg April, 2019         The all-volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn FMI re League of Women Voters of Maine: www.lwvme.org

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Engineer: Amy Browne What do those words mean: republic and democracy? What do people mean when they say, “We’re not a democracy; we’re a republic,” in the context of different policy debates. Is there a particular subtext implicating minority rights, even minority rule, and possibly states’ rights and federalism? Guests : Lance Dutson, a Republican communications consultant and a columnist for the Bangor Daily News. lancedutson.bangordailynews.com/about/ Joseph Reisert, Associate Professor of American Constitutional Law at Colby College www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jrreiser/  To learn more about this topic: Democracy or Republic?, Jay Cost in Nationa Review September, 2018. Sorry, Liberals, But America Is Not A Democracy, And It’s Better That Way,, Clifford Humphrey in The Federalist February, 2018. Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation’s Values Dana Goldstein in The New York Times April, 2019. Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy? Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, at The Washington Post May, 2015. You Say Democracy, I Say Republic, Jonathan Bernstein in Bloomberg April, 2019         The all-volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn FMI re League of Women Voters of Maine: www.lwvme.org

The League of Women Voters – Downeast panel discussion on Journalism and Democracy, focusing on the importance of a free press in a functioning democracy and the challenges facing us today. The panel discussion took place in Ellsworth, Maine on 3/2/19, and was made possible through a grant from the Maine Humanities Council and the partnership of WERU Community Radio, along with the co-sponsorship of the Ellsworth American and Mount Desert Islander. Panelists: John Christie: Veteran journalist and co-founder of the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting Irwin Gratz: Host of Morning Edition, Maine Public Liz Graves: Managing Editor of the Mount Desert Islander Joseph Reisert: Professor of American Constitutional Law, Colby College Moderator: Ann Luther, the host of Democracy Forum on WERU Community Radio

In this episode, we hear from Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Sutton recently released a terrific book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. There is much to learn for criminal defense lawyers and others from Judge Sutton's book and from this podcast. I spoke with Judge Sutton by phone last month while he was teaching state constitutional law in the January term at Harvard Law School. Learn more about NACDL. Ivan J. Dominguez, host. Ian Nawalinski, production assistant. Music West Bank (Lezet) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and Walkabout (Digital Primitives) / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Running time: 22m31s.

On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The luncheon address by Hon. Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covered the role of state constitutions and state courts in formulating American constitutional law.Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Matthew Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC and President, Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law

On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The luncheon address by Hon. Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covered the role of state constitutions and state courts in formulating American constitutional law.Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Matthew Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC and President, Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and author of the new book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, explores four constitutional debates — school funding, the exclusionary rule, eugenics, and mandatory flag salutes — to shed light on the importance of state courts and state constitutions in protecting liberty. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.

A conversation about how corporations have used the courts to win rights that were made for people and not for businesses. Guest: Adam Winkler, is a historian and law professor, specializing in American Constitutional Law.  He us the author of We The Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. Support your radio station, donate to KPFA today!!! BOOK We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights by Adam Winkler  $120 MP3 CD American History Pack  $100 USB Letters and Politics Mondo Pack  $180 COMBO Book + USB  $275     The post How American Corporations Won Their Civil Rights appeared first on KPFA.

Body/Description for YouTube and SoundCloud (remove parens info for Drupal): Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit speaks at UVA Law about the importance of state constitutions in constitutional jurisprudence. He argues that lawyers miss many opportunities to use state constitutions to their advantage, instead limiting themselves to arguments based on the U.S. Constitution. Dean Risa Goluboff introduces Sutton at the event, a discussion of Sutton’s book, “51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law,” hosted by the Virginia Law Review and the Journal of Law & Politics. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 4, 2018)

Judge Jeffrey Sutton discusses his career, the balance of state and federal legislation, and his new book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law.

When we think of constitutional law, we invariably focus on the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton argues that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in protecting individual liberties.51 Imperfect Solutions addresses four different areas of constitutional law: equal protection, criminal procedure, privacy, and free speech and free exercise of religion. Traditional accounts of these bedrock debates about the relationship of the individual to the state focus on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. But these are only part of the story. Judge Sutton corrects this omission by looking at each issue – and some others as well – through the lens of many constitutions, not one constitution; of many courts, not one court; and of all American judges, not federal or state judges. A central conviction of his work is that an under-appreciation of state constitutional law has hurt state and federal law and has undermined the appropriate balance between state and federal courts in protecting individual liberty. Several ideas for reform are also offered to correct this imbalance. Join us for an interesting and lively discussion with Judge Sutton on his new book, followed by comments by Ed Whelan. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

When we think of constitutional law, we invariably think of the United States Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton argues that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in protecting individual liberties. The book tells four stories that arise in four different areas of constitutional law: equal protection; criminal procedure; privacy; and free speech and free exercise of religion. Traditional accounts of these bedrock debates about the relationship of the individual to the state focus on decisions of the United States Supreme Court. But these explanations tell just part of the story. The book corrects this omission by looking at each issue--and some others as well--through the lens of many constitutions, not one constitution; of many courts, not one court; and of all American judges, not federal or state judges. Taken together, the stories reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has all of the answers to the most vexing constitutional questions. If there is a central conviction of the book, it's that an underappreciation of state constitutional law has hurt state and federal law and has undermined the appropriate balance between state and federal courts in protecting individual liberty. In trying to correct this imbalance, the book also offers several ideas for reform. Author Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit will join Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit to discuss his new book. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

When we think of constitutional law, we invariably think of the United States Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton argues that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in protecting individual liberties. The book tells four stories that arise in four different areas of constitutional law: equal protection; criminal procedure; privacy; and free speech and free exercise of religion. Traditional accounts of these bedrock debates about the relationship of the individual to the state focus on decisions of the United States Supreme Court. But these explanations tell just part of the story. The book corrects this omission by looking at each issue--and some others as well--through the lens of many constitutions, not one constitution; of many courts, not one court; and of all American judges, not federal or state judges. Taken together, the stories reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has all of the answers to the most vexing constitutional questions. If there is a central conviction of the book, it's that an underappreciation of state constitutional law has hurt state and federal law and has undermined the appropriate balance between state and federal courts in protecting individual liberty. In trying to correct this imbalance, the book also offers several ideas for reform. Author Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit will join Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit to discuss his new book. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.