Podcasts about california hastings college

As promised, John Leshy is back on the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Podcast & Blast to discuss his recently published and definitive book, Our Common Ground: A History of America's Public Lands. Our Common Ground is the most comprehensive and incisive history, both legal and political, ever written about the American public lands. It is an absolute must-read for anyone who loves our national forests, parks, grasslands or BLM lands, especially right now, when the entire institution of the American public lands is being questioned by so many- most of whom have no idea what they are putting at risk. John Leshy is a former General Counsel of the Department of Interior and the Harry D. Sunderland Distinguished Professor of Real Property at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. He has been deeply engaged in public lands policy and law for over fifty years. --- The Podcast & Blast with Hal Herring is brought you by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and presented by Silencer Central, with additional support from Decked, Dometic, and Filson.  Join Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, the voice for your wild public lands, waters, and wildlife to be part of a passionate community of hunter-angler-conservationists. www.backcountryhunters.org  

Daniel Webster was at the center of the great issues that defined his times. He was opposed to slavery, vehemently opposed the Indian Removal Act - that ended in the notorious and, illegal, Trail of Tears - with fellow congressman Davy Crockett; argued consistently for freedom of religion and the protection of religious minorities. Yet even today an ambivalence exists about him that reflects a judgment of him based on current standards. In his book Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism, historian Joel Richard Paul seeks to draw our attention to the two most abiding principles of Webster: Freedom - that drove his belief that slavery was wrong, and Union, without which securing freedom for slaves in the southern states would not be possible and without which America could not fulfill its most promising ideals. Paul makes a convincing case that Webster was the force that gave birth to the to the belief that we were Americans, not merely Virginians, or Pennsylvanians or New Hampshireites; That the Constitution of the United States was the thread that wove us together and gave us common cause.Joel Richard Paul is a Professor of Constitutional and International Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law; Author, Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism

Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism: This is a Podcast shared to NH Secrets from The Radical Centrist PodcastDaniel Webster was at the center of the great issues that defined his times. He was opposed to slavery, vehemently opposed the Indian Removal Act - that ended in the notorious and, illegal, Trail of Tears - with fellow congressman Davy Crockett; argued consistently for freedom of religion and the protection of religious minorities. Yet even today an ambivalence exists about him that reflects a judgment of him based on current standards. In his book Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism, historian Joel Richard Paul seeks to draw our attention to the two most abiding principles of Webster: Freedom - that drove his belief that slavery was wrong, and Union, without which securing freedom for slaves in the southern states would not be possible and without which America could not fulfill its most promising ideals. Paul makes a convincing case that Webster was the force that gave birth to the to the belief that we were Americans, not merely Virginians, or Pennsylvanians or New Hampshireites; That the Constitution of the United States was the thread that wove us together and gave us common cause.Joel Richard Paul is a Professor of Constitutional and International Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law; Author, Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism

In 2019, the U.S. government took a step that it had never taken before. It brought criminal charges against a foreign state-owned bank, Turkiye Halk Bankasi, or Halkbank, which is majority-owned by the country of Turkiye (until recently known as Turkey), for evading U.S. sanctions on Iran. Turkiye in turn argued that such a move was not only unprecedented but prohibited by the legal immunities it is entitled to under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA. Yesterday, those arguments reached the U.S. Supreme Court where both sides seemed to agree on just one thing—that the court's eventual decision could well have major consequences for the United States and its foreign relations.To talk through oral arguments in Halkbank, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading sovereign immunity experts: Professor Chimène Keitner of the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and Professor Ingrid Wuerth of Vanderbilt Law School. They discussed how each side reads the FSIA and other related statutes, whether any of the justices seemed particularly persuaded, and where the court—as well as the broader issue—seems likely to go from here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Russia's unlawful war of aggression continues to inflict untold devastation on Ukraine, policymakers have begun to search for ways to support Ukraine's beleaguered economy and fund its eventual reconstruction. Their attention has turned to the billions of dollars in assets that the United States has frozen as part of its robust sanctions against the Kremlin. But as policymakers attempt to make some of these assets available to Ukraine, it begs the question: Under what legal authority can the United States seize these Russian frozen assets?Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson and Chimène Keitner, Alfred & Hanna Fromm Professor of International & Comparative Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, wrote a piece for Lawfare titled, “The Legal Challenges Presented by Seizing Frozen Russian Assets,” where they explain the core legal issues that U.S. policymakers need to consider as they weigh whether and how to move forward with seizing any frozen Russian-related assets. Lawfare legal fellow Saraphin Dhanani sat down with Scott to discuss all of this, as well as to get Scott's take on how the U.S. might move forward in its efforts to support Ukraine using Russian assets, notwithstanding, of course, the many legal constraints it faces. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We are seeing an increase in the frequency and strength of major weather events, or emergencies caused by weather events: Hurricanes, snow storms, wildfires, etc. In this episode, we use the backdrop of Hurricane Ian  to discuss preparedness for weather emergencies on campus. Key Takeaways:A Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is a critical document that enables rapid and thorough response to an emergency situation. If you haven't reviewed your COOP, or if you don't have a COOP, start there. Your emergency management team should be able to assist. Registrar's offices have a specific set of responsibilities that need to be accounted for in the case of an emergency; planning for a worst case scenario is a good idea. Assume no power, no internet, and no system status for some period of time.Designated, authorized individuals in the registrar's office may need to create a “driveaway kit” that includes information about student class schedules, emergency contact information, and any other critical forms, documents, or information that your institution may need. Often, the majority of the work relating to a weather emergency happens once the storm (or event) itself has passed. Maintaining flexibility, understanding, and working with compassion with your staff, your students, and your faculty can go a long way to restoring some semblance of normalcy. Being able to coordinate with other registrars is very helpful! AACRAO and your regional association can help you make those connections.     Hosts:Sarah Reed, RegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the Lawreedsarah@uchastings.edu Doug McKenna, University RegistrarGeorge Mason Universitycmckenn@gmu.edu Guests:Brian BoydUniversity RegistrarUniversity of Central Floridabrian.boyd@ucf.edu https://registrar.ucf.edu/Additional Resources:ready.gov - Federal resource for emergency planningContinuity of Operations Plans - FEMA guidelinesCore Competencies and Professional Proficiencies:Leadership and ManagementCollaborative Decision Making

Improving the transfer experience for students is a high priority for a lot of institutions, and nationally making transfer better is a huge conversation. In this episode, we hear from a faculty member from the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Lauren Schudde, who has conducted research on the transfer process from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution. In a lively discussion that ranges from systemic inequality to transfer articulations to football weekends, we hear some recommendations for registrars offices and others across institutions about ways to guide transfer students through the process.   Key Takeaways:Transfer students need easy access to publicly accessible (and student-focused) transfer guides that help them determine how the transferability and applicability of their earned credits will advance them toward the goal of earning a bachelor's degree.  Registrar's offices are often responsible for significant parts of a holistic transfer guide: the coding of the degree audit, and the production of the institution's Catalog. Incorporating accurate, up-to-date requirements and policies in a transfer guide is critical for transfer students who might be researching potential transfer destinations.True change with regards to improving the transfer process will need to be a comprehensive adjustment of people's understanding about their responsibilities, the role they play in the process for their institution and in support of transfer students, and may require policy/legislative remedies. Transfer is a huge topic and to better address all of the various topics relating to transfer, AACRAO will be launching a brand new podcast this fall called The Transfer Tea, hosted by Loida Utley. Look for it later this fall!    Hosts:Sarah Reed, RegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the LawDoug McKenna, University RegistrarGeorge Mason UniversityGuests:Dr. Lauren SchuddeAssociate Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and PolicyUniversity of Texas at Austinhttps://education.utexas.edu/faculty/lauren_schudde  Additional Resources:AACRAO Re-Envisioning TransferSchudde, L., Bicak, I., & Meghan, S. (2022). Getting to the core of credit transfer: How do pre-transfer core credits predict baccalaureate attainment for community college transfer students? Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211049415 Schudde, L., Jabbar, H., Epstein, E., & Yucel, E. (2021). Students' sense making of higher education policies during the vertical transfer process. American Educational Research Journal, 58(5), 921–953. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211003050 Core Competencies and Professional Proficiencies:Transfer & ArticulationInterpretation and Application of Institutional and External DataHolistic and Systemic Thinking

In this episode, three women share their experiences with supporting and being supported by other women and what that support has meant for their careers and themselves personally. In a lively conversation, we discuss ways that allies can and should provide support, as well. Sara Sullivan, Becky Keogh, and Beth Warner talk about dealing with slights, lifting others up, the changing AACRAO leadership demographics, and dealing with that little inside voice. Key Takeaways:Women can and should support women because women are not always great at supporting themselves. It's important to acknowledge the women who were on the path ahead of you who opened doors, and recognize that there are women on the journey behind you for whom you are blazing a trail. Allies can support women in a variety of tangible ways: mentorship, opening doors to opportunities, giving credit appropriately, giving clear, actionable feedback are just a few.Don't be afraid to be yourself, to bring all parts of you to bear in your work. Don't worry about whether someone thinks you're taking up “too much space” or “being emotional.”    Hosts:Sarah Reed, RegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the LawDoug McKenna, University RegistrarGeorge Mason UniversityGuests:Sara SullivanAssociate RegistrarUniversity of IowaBecky KeoghSenior Associate RegistrarMichigan State UniversityBeth WarnerAssociate RegistrarUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison

Formal citizenship requirements for political participation excludes not only noncitizens, but also many individuals from racial communities perpetually seen as foreigners. Ming Hsu Chen of the University of California Hastings College of Law looks at regulatory barriers, such as voter ID laws, that inhibit both racial minorities and non-citizens from participating equally in the American political process. She offers proposals for regulatory changes that would create a more equitable political order. Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org. 

The modern registrar's office moves readily from one project to the next in our work to support student success and provide outstanding service to the university community. Employing best practices from a project management framework can go a long way to making those projects run more smoothly, efficiently, and more successfully. Rita Peaster and Aaron Apel talk about their background and experience with project management frameworks, provide insights into ways to improve your office's overall project management capabilities, and reflect on various aspects of project management.         Key Takeaways:Application of project management best practices can make the work of your office more efficient, effective, and successful.Pursuing project management certification makes sense if your work includes significant project work. Otherwise, informal training will be sufficient. The Project Management Institute is a good place to start if you are interested in formal training or certification. There are also many free resources available with a simple web search.Many downstream issues can be alleviated with careful, thoughtful preparation and consistent, transparent communication in the early stages of a project. Consider the stakeholders who will be affected and keep them in the loop. There will be surprises with every project and open communication from the start will help immensely.   Hosts:Doug McKenna, University RegistrarGeorge Mason Universitycmckenn@gmu.edu Sarah Reed, RegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the Lawreedsarah@uchastings.edu Guests:Rita PeasterUniversity RegistrarOklahoma State University - Main Campusrita.peaster@okstate.edu Aaron ApelAssistant Registrar for Enrollment & ResidencyUniversity of Wisconsin - Madisonaaron.apel@wisc.edu References and Additional Information:Project Management Institute  scrum.org - the home of scrumProject Management Best Practices: Salapatas, J. N. (2000). Best practices—the nine elements to success. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, TX. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.PMBOK Guide - A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge - 7th EditionProject Management classes via LinkedIn LearningCore Competencies and Professional Proficiencies:Leadership & Management Data Systems ManagementChange Management

Interview with Dr. Elvir Causevic, Esqhttps://www.elvir.me/Elvir is a rebel entrepreneur and wisdom activist. He's been a professor, engineer, exec, investment banker, people coach, and Earth lawyer. He now runs a boutique investment bank Tech+IP Capital, Upend, a new school of ancient wisdoms, and is a Board director at EarthLaw and WorkLife Law.He holds a doctorate in Electrical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, a law degree from University of California Hastings College of the Law, and apprenticed as transformational coach at Phoenix 2000 and Trainer Designs.Today, Elvir's quest is to refresh our collective memory of our ancient wisdoms, so we can each live well, enjoy each other, and cherish our Earth.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/zen-success/message

Elvir is a rebel entrepreneur and wisdom activist.  He's been a professor, engineer, exec, investment banker, people coach, and Earth lawyer.  He now runs a boutique investment bank Tech+IP Capital, Upend, a new school of ancient wisdoms,  and is a Board director at EarthLaw and WorkLife Law.  Losing his country (Yugoslavia/Bosnia) to war as a teen, Elvir finds home in disparate worlds, and kinship with the othered. He's since joyously clipped four umbilical cords of children who changed his life, tasted the world's finest mountain rivers, and inhaled old-growth forests.  He can never again pretend not to know a beauty way.  He holds a doctorate in Electrical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, a law degree from University of California Hastings College of the Law, and apprenticed as transformational coach at Phoenix 2000 and Trainer Designs.Today, Elvir's quest is to refresh our collective memory of our ancient wisdoms, so we can each live well, enjoy each other, and cherish our Earth.Follow Elvir at UpEnd.com - an organization he founded to teach simple, science-backed wisdoms from time immemorial so you can shape a life of well-being, abundance, and joy.***Follow the Greg Krino Show here...GregKrino.comYouTubeInstagramFacebookTwitterLinkedInIf you enjoyed the podcast, please leave a 5-star rating and friendly comment on your podcast app. It takes only a minute, and it really helps convince popular guests to join me.If you have comments or ideas for the show, please contact me at gregkrinoshow@gmail.com.

Denise talks to Nancy Tellem, one of the most respected voices in the entertainment industry. After practicing law in Los Angeles for a brief four years, Nancy knew it wasn't her calling and jumped into an industry she's loved since childhood—television. She was an Executive Vice President for Warner Brothers and then ascended to the Presidency of the CBS Network Television Entertainment Group, only the second woman in television history to hold the top post at a major broadcast network.    Now, as the Executive Chairperson for Eko, a digital media company, Nancy has had many accomplishments that she can be incredibly proud of. Believe it or not, she's MOST proud of her recent endeavor co-founding BasBlue, a non-profit social membership organization for women. Located inside a renovated historic mansion in Midtown Detroit, BasBlue offers educational seminars, mentorship, and other programming with industry experts. Her days at Warner Brothers and CBS taught her the value of building an amazing team, and the talented group who helped to launch BasBlue are just that.  Born and raised in California, Nancy committed to living in Detroit fulltime, following her husband Arn Tellem after he took a position as Vice Chairman of the Detroit Pistons basketball franchise. Nancy loves the city and the extraordinary women she's met there. Not to mention the time she enjoys being close to her grandchildren.  Listen to learn from Nancy (a) how she faced the tough decision to leave CBS without knowing what she'd do next, (b) how she maintains her confidence, (c) what she would say to her younger self about taking risks and, (d) her advice to those seeking both corporate and non-profit board positions.  ***  Nancy Tellem is Executive Chairperson of Eko, former President of Xbox Entertainment Studios, past President of the CBS Network Television Entertainment Group and former Executive Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs for Warner Brothers. Tellem has been inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame, was on Forbes magazine's annual list of “The World's 100 Most Powerful Women” and won many awards and honors for her career in network television. In 2020, Nancy co-founded BasBlue, Detroit's first-ever nonprofit space dedicated to fostering leadership opportunities for women. She holds board positions with Eko, Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Rocket Companies, Nielsen Holdings and Struum. Tellem is a graduate of University of California Berkeley and holds a JD from the University of California Hastings College of Law. She and her husband Arn Tellem have three sons and live in Detroit.  Denise Ilitch, an owner of Ilitch Family Companies and President of Ilitch Enterprises, has been a part of Detroit's business and philanthropic community for over 40 years.  As a mother, lawyer, entrepreneur, devoted community servant and tireless advocate for women and children, she learned early, from her father, that everyone is worthy of contributing to the world.  Her passion for affordable, accessible, quality education stems from her own experience as a first-generation student, earning a bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan, where she currently serves on the Board of Regents, and a law degree from the University of Detroit Law School.  FOLLOW DENISE @thedeniseilitchshow  TO LEARN MORE about all our inspiring podcasts visit https://www.lifestough.com/. 

Recording at the Portland Convention Center as part of the 107th AACRAO Annual Meeting afforded an opportunity for people to share some thoughts and reflections on their careers, what they find surprising about working in a registrar's office, and how the AACRAO community has affected them. In this episode, participants of the Registrar 101 and FERPA workshop share some thoughts, with a few additional guests sprinkled in.          Key Takeaways:The AACRAO Annual Meeting is a fantastic place to network, meet people, share experiences, and get invited to participate in a podcast. There isn't one “right” way to be a registrar; there isn't one “right” career path. These conversations shed light on the journeys we are all on and ways that our journeys intersect with opportunities to support and encourage each other.   Guests:Catarina MoitaRegistrar AdvisorColorado School of Minescmoita@mines.edu Loida Gonzalez UtleyAssistant Director of Transfer RecruitmentTexas A&M University - Corpus Christiloida.utley@tamucc.edu Sarah ReedRegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the Lawreedsarah@uchastings.edu Tyler HensonRegistrarMiddle Tennessee State Universitytyler.henson@mtsu.edu Tiffany RobinsonAsst. Vice Provost/University RegistrarUniversity of Kansas Main Campustiffany.robinson@ku.edu Tiffani RobertsonAssociate Director of AdmissionsGovernors State Universitytrobertson3@govst.edu Curtis ClineAssociate Registrar for Graduate ProgramsCedarville Universityclinec@cedarville.edu Stacy SharpAssistant RegistrarAims Community Collegestacy.sharp@aims.edu Danny FreireDirector Enrolment Services and RegistrarSaskatchewan Polytechnicfreirep@saskpolytech.ca LacyJane RymanRegistrarRowan College At Burlington Countylryman@rcbc.edu Sarah StricklerAssistant Registrar for Classroom Scheduling and CurriculumUniversity of Oregonsstrick2@uoregon.edu Core Competencies:Diversity & InclusionLeadership & Management 

Recording at the Portland Convention Center as part of the 107th AACRAO Annual Meeting afforded an opportunity for people to share some thoughts and reflections on their careers, what brought them to this particular place, and how the AACRAO community has affected them. Sarah Reed, Registrar at UC Hastings College of the Law serves as guest host for many of the conversations, hence the title of the episodes.         Key Takeaways:The AACRAO Annual Meeting is a fantastic place to network, meet people, share experiences, and get invited to participate in a podcast. There isn't one “right” way to be a registrar; there isn't one “right” career path. These conversations shed light on the journeys we are all on and ways that our journeys intersect with opportunities to support and encourage each other.   Guests:Sarah ReedRegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the Lawreedsarah@uchastings.edu Emily ShandleyUniversity RegistrarYale Universityemily.shandley@yale.edu Michelle Tsigaridas WellerAssociate Registrar and Director of Academic OperationsNew York Law Schoolmichelle.weller@nyls.edu Dr. Soraira UrquizaRegistrarAmerican Film Institute Conservatorysurquiza@afi.edu Allan F. “Bud” Livers Jr.Associate RegistrarThe United States Naval Community College (USNCC)allan.livers@usncc.edu 

Tonight on the California Report: Courts around the country are paying attention as San Francisco attempts to hold pharmacies and drug manufacturers liable for opioid addiction and overdoses in a federal trial beginning today. And the University of California Hastings College of Law gets a new name--National Native News fills us in on the brutal history of the school's current eponym. After updates on local news and weather, Al Stahler speaks to Author Anya Stanger about her new book, Incarcerated Resistance. Stanger is set to present her research in Grass Valley at Sierra College next Tuesday May 3rd.

Recording at the Portland Convention Center as part of the 107th AACRAO Annual Meeting afforded an opportunity for people to share some thoughts and reflections on their careers, what brought them to this particular place, and how the AACRAO community has affected them. Sarah Reed, Registrar at UC Hastings College of the Law serves as guest host for many of the conversations, hence the title of the episode.         Key Takeaways:The AACRAO Annual Meeting is a fantastic place to network, meet people, share experiences, and get invited to participate in a podcast. There isn't one “right” way to be a registrar; there isn't one “right” career path. These conversations shed light on the journeys we are all on and ways that our journeys intersect with opportunities to support and encourage each other.   Guests:Sarah ReedRegistrarUniversity of California Hastings College of the Lawreedsarah@uchastings.eduIngrid NuttallDirector, Office of the RegistrarUniversity of Minnesota - Twin Citiesingridn@umn.eduLisa ErckAssociate University Registrar and Law School RegistrarUniversity of the Pacificlerck@pacific.eduOloga IopuAssociate RegistrarSalt Lake Community Collegeologa.iopu@slcc.eduMargo LandyUniversity RegistrarSan Francisco State Universitymargolandy@sfsu.eduCore Competencies:Diversity & InclusionLeadership & Management 

Dorit Reiss, a Professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, discusses a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Navy can limit deployment for 35 Seals who are refusing on religious grounds to get vaccinated against Covid-19. Gloria Browne-Marshall, a Professor at the Jay College of Criminal Justice, discusses the overtones of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Richard Briffault, a Professor at Columbia Law School, discusses a divided U.S. Supreme Court tossing out a ruling that adopted state-legislative voting maps saying they might violate the Constitution by carving out an additional majority-Black district for the State Assembly. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Dorit Reiss, a Professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, discusses a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Navy can limit deployment for 35 Seals who are refusing on religious grounds to get vaccinated against Covid-19. Gloria Browne-Marshall, a Professor at the Jay College of Criminal Justice, discusses the overtones of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Richard Briffault, a Professor at Columbia Law School, discusses a divided U.S. Supreme Court tossing out a ruling that adopted state-legislative voting maps saying they might violate the Constitution by carving out an additional majority-Black district for the State Assembly. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Taliban spokesman says they have drawn a red line in the sand and more on today's CrossPolitic Daily News Brief This is Toby Sumpter. Today is Tuesday, August 24, 2021. CREC Issues Religious Exemption Statement & Sample Letter https://crechurches.org/documents/statements/PMOC-CREC_Religious-Exemption-Statement.pdf Standing in the ancient Christian tradition, committed to the doctrinal standards of our local and denominational constitutions and the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) affirms our religion's principles of liberty of conscience, honoring and preserving human life from conception to natural death, as well as the sovereignty of individuals and families in medical and healthcare decision-making.  Therefore, we state our unequivocal support for the right of refusal of mandatory medical procedures, whether ordered by a branch of civil government, an employer, or any other institution to which an individual is subject or dependent – in the event that an individual sincerely believes his or her life, health, wellbeing, or morality is potentially threatened by such procedures or products, or in the event that a parent has the same concern for his or her child.  We affirm that our Christian religion protects the liberty of individuals and families to refuse any medical procedure or product on the basis of sincerely held concerns for known or unknown side effects, experimental or emergency uses, potential involvement in fetal cell lines whether in development or testing, or medical and/or political corruption or coercion.  Therefore, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we defend the rights and responsibilities of our members to research these issues in consultation with their medical providers in order to make responsible medical decisions for themselves, including refusing vaccination or gene therapies on religious grounds. And we hereby call upon all governments, schools, employers, and other institutions to respect these deeply held religious convictions by upholding this religious liberty and/or providing religious exemptions as requested.  On Behalf of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches  There's an attached sample letter that can be personalized by a pastor to be written on behalf of parishioners for schools or employers. "Next, I want to tell our homeschool listeners about Classy Artist Box. It is a company created by a Christian art teacher who sends you everything you need to create four art projects each month. You can use their written instructions and video lessons to help guide you through each project. In addition to the four new projects each month, you'll also have access to two and a half years worth of video lessons to enjoy as a member. Each type of subscription will cover a range of art media throughout the year, which means you have your art curricular needs covered. For 30% off of your first subscription order, use code CROSS30. To see more, check out www.ClassyArtistBox.com.  Infrastructure Bill Back in the House With Senators  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/23/sinema-35t-spending-bill-506583 From Politico: Kyrsten Sinema still opposes her party's plans for a $3.5 trillion, party-line spending bill. And she's not up for a negotiation about it. As House Democratic leaders hold back Sinema's own Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill in order to push the Arizona Democrat and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to support a multitrillion-dollar spending bill, Sinema is making it crystal clear that her mind can't be changed. And that applies even as her own legislation becomes a bargaining chip in House Democrats' internal discussions. The $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill “is a historic win for our nation's everyday families and employers and, like every proposal, should be considered on its own merits,” said Sinema spokesperson John LaBombard. “Proceedings in the U.S. House will have no impact on Kyrsten's views about what is best for our country - including the fact that she will not support a budget reconciliation bill that costs $3.5 trillion.” It's the latest entrenched position from the first-term moderate, whose resistance to changing the Senate's filibuster rules and to supporting a $3.5 trillion spending bill is enraging progressives. Sinema and Manchin both helped pass Democrats' budget earlier this month, setting up that gargantuan spending bill, but both are resistant to a social spending package that ultimately meets its $3.5 trillion top line mark. Sinema in particular specifically opposes that spending goal, which was devised by Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Senate Democrats need all 50 of their members, including Manchin and Sinema, to pass a filibuster-proof reconciliation spending bill. On Sunday Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her members were still pursuing a bill that costs $3.5 trillion, but are hoping to finance it in part with tax enforcement and tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. Meanwhile, moderates in Pelosi's caucus are declining to back the Senate-passed budget unless Pelosi puts Sinema's Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill up for a vote on the House floor. In statement shortly after Sinema's, Manchin leaned on Pelosi and House leaders to act now on the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill instead of waiting for the Senate to pass a massive spending bill. "It would send a terrible message to the American people if this bipartisan bill is held hostage. I urge my colleagues in the House to move swiftly to get this once in a generation legislation to the President's desk for his signature," Manchin said. Jake Sherman on Twitter: In closed dem meeting, @SpeakerPelosi and @RepKClark are making the case that a vote against the rule that sets up budget vote would be a vote against female priorities — and a vote against women of color. “Women are watching to see what is happening here,” Pelosi said Kyrsten Sinema is also watching, but I doubt she counts as far as Pelosi is concerned.  Jake Sherman was Reporting from the House late Monday on Twitter suggesting that there would be an attempt to pass a rule concerning the debate on the infrastructure bill that could include language that would “deem” the bipartisan bill approved.  Politics of Sex Conference Play Audio Biden Announces FDA Approval of Pfizer COVID Vaccine https://twitter.com/breaking911/status/1429872489019084802?s=21 Play Audio But Pfizer & the FDA Have Sovereign Immunity https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html From CNBC on December 23rd: If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law.  The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines. “It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren't offered much liability protection under the law.“ You also can't sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment. Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there's “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024. That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.  HHS declined CNBC's request for an interview. Dunn thinks a big reason for the unprecedented protection has to do with the expedited timeline.  “When the government said, ‘We want you to develop this four or five times faster than you normally do,' most likely the manufacturers said to the government, ‘We want you, the government, to protect us from multimillion-dollar lawsuits,'” said Dunn.  The quickest vaccine ever developed was for mumps. It took four years and was licensed in 1967. Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine was developed and cleared for emergency use in eight months — a fact that has fueled public mistrust of the coronavirus inoculation in the U.S. But drugmakers like Pfizer continue to reassure the public no shortcuts were taken. “This is a vaccine that was developed without cutting corners,” CEO Dr. Albert Bourla said in an interview with CNBC's “Squawk Box” on Monday. “This is a vaccine that is getting approved by all authorities in the world. That should say something.” The legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies doesn't just guard them against lawsuits. Dunn said it helps lower the cost of the immunizations. “The government doesn't want people suing the companies making the Covid vaccine. Because then, the manufacturers would probably charge the government a higher price per person per dose,” Dunn explained.  Pfizer and Moderna did not return CNBC's request for comment on their legal protections. Is anyone liable? Remember, vaccine manufacturers aren't the ones approving their product for mass distribution. That is the job of the FDA. Which begs the question, can you sue the U.S. government if you have an extraordinarily bad reaction to a vaccine? Again, the answer is no.  “You can't sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. “That's part of its sovereign immunity.” Sovereign immunity came from the king, explains Dunn, referring to British law before the American Revolution. “You couldn't sue the king. So, America has sovereign immunity, and even each state has sovereign immunity.” There are limited exceptions, but Dunn said he doesn't think they provide a viable legal path to hold the federal government responsible for a Covid vaccine injury. Taliban says they are drawing a red line https://news.sky.com/story/afghanistan-taliban-warns-there-will-be-consequences-if-biden-delays-withdrawal-of-us-troops-12388436 Play Audio: 0:00-0:49 Secretary of State Blinken Says America Will Be Asking Taliban Permission https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1429874831407915015?s=20 Play Audio: 0:00-0:36 Psalm of the Day: To the Word – Isaiah 8 Play Audio Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links.  This is Toby Sumpter with Crosspolitic News. You can find this and all of our shows at Crosspolitic.com or on our app, which you can download at your favorite app store, just search “Fight Laugh Feast”. A reminder: if you see news stories and links that you think we should cover on the daily news brief, please send them to news @ crosspolitic.com and don't forget to check deft wire dot com where we are constantly posting all our stories.  04Support Rowdy Christian media, and share this show or become a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member. You always get a free Fight Laugh Feast t-shirt with a membership and remember if you didn't make it to the Fight Laugh Feast Conference or Rally, club members have access to all the talks and lots more. Join today and have a great day.

In this episode, we are delighted to be joined by John Leshy, Emeritus Professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, San Francisco. John became deeply involved with America's public lands soon after his graduation from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He was solicitor for the U.S. Department of Interior from 1993 to 2001, is co-author of the standard textbook on public land and resources law (Federal Public Land and Resources Law), and has written and lectured widely on public lands.The description for his book 'Our Common Land' is as follows:The little-known story of how the U.S. government came to hold nearly one-third of the nation's land and manage it primarily for recreation, education and conservation.“A much-needed chronicle of how the American people decided––wisely and democratically––that nearly a third of the nation's land surface should remain in our collective ownership and be managed for our common good.”—Dayton Duncan, author of The National Parks: America's Best Idea America's public lands include more than 600 million acres of forests, plains, mountains, wetlands, deserts, and shorelines. In this book, John Leshy, a leading expert in public lands policy, discusses the key political decisions that led to this, beginning at the very founding of the nation. He traces the emergence of a bipartisan political consensus in favor of the national government holding these vast land areas primarily for recreation, education, and conservation of biodiversity and cultural resources. That consensus remains strong and continues to shape American identity. Such a success story of the political system is a bright spot in an era of cynicism about government. This book is essential reading for anyone who cares about public lands, and it is particularly timely as the world grapples with the challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Hello and welcome to The Rob Burgess Show. I am, of course, your host, Rob Burgess. On this our 208th episode, our guest is John Leshy. John Leshy became deeply involved with America's public lands soon after his graduation from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He was solicitor for the U.S. Department of Interior from 1993 to 2001, is co-author of the standard textbook on public land and resources law, “Federal Public Land and Resources Law,”, and has written and lectured widely on public lands. He is emeritus professor, University of California Hastings College of Law, San Francisco. His new book, “Our Common Ground: A History of America's Public Lands,” will be published Feb. 8, 2022 by Yale University Press. Join The Rob Burgess Show mailing list! Go to tinyletter.com/therobburgessshow and type in your email address. Then, respond to the automatic message. Also please make sure to comment, follow, like, subscribe, share, rate and review everywhere the podcast is available, including iTunes, YouTube, SoundCloud, Stitcher, Google Play Music, Twitter, Internet Archive, TuneIn, RSS, and, now, Spotify. The official website for the podcast is www.therobburgessshow.com. You can find more about me by visiting my website, www.thisburgess.com.If you have something to say, record a voice memo on your smartphone and send it to therobburgessshow@gmail.com. Include “voice memo” in the subject line of the email. Also, if you want to call or text the show for any reason, the number is: 317-674-3547.

According to an article written by our guest, "Some of the most exciting, vexing, and terrifying issues at the intersection of AI and law involve robojudges. Can we build a robojudiciary that replaces human judiciaries? Should we? Doing so would massively disrupt how our legal systems operate. It also might transform democratic self-government." I have to ask: Would any of that be so bad? It's not like humans are doing such a bang-up job. The risk, of course, is what if we get it all wrong?  The good news for all of us, not the least of which are the robe and wig industries,  is that we still have time. Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, but it's still not able to think like a learned jurist. We can say it will have flaws, but so do our human deciders. So it will be a tradeoff, right? What are the risks? What are the upsides? Will robojudges be able to absorb infinitely more information quickly? Will they hand down decisions free from the influence of bias? Wouldn't it be great to eliminate conflicts of interest?  Joining me to discuss this not-so-out-there concept is Joshua P. Davis, a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics, class actions, and artificial intelligence in the law. He is Research Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and Shareholder and Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C.'s new San Francisco Bay Area Office. For more than 20 years Josh was a tenured Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco Law School, where he also served as the Director of the Center for Law and Ethics. Josh is authoring two books, one titled Unnatural Law, dealing with AI and the law, and a second on the important issue of class action ethics. Finally, remind me never to assume anything when I ask Josh a question. I said something like, "Surely we're not talking about sci-fi robots here," to which he basically said, "Not so fast." This happened more than once. When will I learn?  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and forward-thinking Josh is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyHost of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

Mike Fraser, ASTHO's CEO, recognizes the first anniversary of a COVID-19 vaccine and discusses hesitancy; Professor Dorit Reiss, University of California Hastings College of the Law, examines the legal arguments behind a lawsuit challenging New York City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for municipal workers; ASTHO members wrap up their first in-person conference since the pandemic started almost two years ago; and ASTHO offers a microlearning titled “Introduction to Process Improvement.” USA Today: History made, millions saved – One year later, ‘surreal' moments of COVID-19 vaccine debut live on Bloomberg: New York City Must Appear in Court Over Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit ASTHO E-Learning: Introduction to Process Improvement

California's major shops that sell toys and other child care items are already keeping these products, whether advertised to boys or girls, in the same sections unseparated by gender. exp-player-logo Assembly Bill 1084 would require large retail stores with more than 500 employees across the state to “maintain a gender neutral section or area … in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.” Long story short, a toy store or big-box retailer should have a toy or child care section that is not demarcated by gender. (For instance, a toy section at a Target that has fire trucks and dolls next to each other is fine, as long as they are not separated as “boys'” or girls'” toys.) “The University of California Hastings College of the Law Board of Directors voted today to authorize UC Hastings leadership to work with state legislators and other stakeholders to change the College's name,” the school's board of directors said in a statement last week. “UC Hastings was founded in 1878 by Serranus Hastings, who perpetrated genocidal acts against Native Californians in the 1850s in the Round and Eden valleys,” it added. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. The third panel analyzed current issues in presidential administration and executive power. It included a discussion featuring The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania's Brian Feinstein, University of California Hastings College of the Law's Zachary Price, and Arizona State University's Bijal Shah, which was moderated by The Ohio State University's Christopher Walker. Brian Feinstein's working paper, co-authored with Abby Wood of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, is available here: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Feinstein-Wood-Divided-Agencies.pdf Zachary Price's working paper is available here: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Price-Faithful-Execution-in-the-Federal-Government-and-the-Fifty-States.pdf Bijal Shah's working paper is available here: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Shah-The-Purpose-of-Presidential-Administration.pdf This episode features Brian D. Feinstein, Zachary S. Price, Bijal Shah, and Christopher J. Walker.

Taliban spokesman says they have drawn a red line in the sand and more on today's CrossPolitic Daily News Brief This is Toby Sumpter. Today is Tuesday, August 24, 2021. CREC Issues Religious Exemption Statement & Sample Letter https://crechurches.org/documents/statements/PMOC-CREC_Religious-Exemption-Statement.pdf Standing in the ancient Christian tradition, committed to the doctrinal standards of our local and denominational constitutions and the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) affirms our religion's principles of liberty of conscience, honoring and preserving human life from conception to natural death, as well as the sovereignty of individuals and families in medical and healthcare decision-making. Therefore, we state our unequivocal support for the right of refusal of mandatory medical procedures, whether ordered by a branch of civil government, an employer, or any other institution to which an individual is subject or dependent – in the event that an individual sincerely believes his or her life, health, wellbeing, or morality is potentially threatened by such procedures or products, or in the event that a parent has the same concern for his or her child. We affirm that our Christian religion protects the liberty of individuals and families to refuse any medical procedure or product on the basis of sincerely held concerns for known or unknown side effects, experimental or emergency uses, potential involvement in fetal cell lines whether in development or testing, or medical and/or political corruption or coercion. Therefore, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we defend the rights and responsibilities of our members to research these issues in consultation with their medical providers in order to make responsible medical decisions for themselves, including refusing vaccination or gene therapies on religious grounds. And we hereby call upon all governments, schools, employers, and other institutions to respect these deeply held religious convictions by upholding this religious liberty and/or providing religious exemptions as requested. On Behalf of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches There's an attached sample letter that can be personalized by a pastor to be written on behalf of parishioners for schools or employers. "Next, I want to tell our homeschool listeners about Classy Artist Box. It is a company created by a Christian art teacher who sends you everything you need to create four art projects each month. You can use their written instructions and video lessons to help guide you through each project. In addition to the four new projects each month, you'll also have access to two and a half years worth of video lessons to enjoy as a member. Each type of subscription will cover a range of art media throughout the year, which means you have your art curricular needs covered. For 30% off of your first subscription order, use code CROSS30. To see more, check out www.ClassyArtistBox.com. Infrastructure Bill Back in the House With Senators https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/23/sinema-35t-spending-bill-506583 From Politico: Kyrsten Sinema still opposes her party's plans for a $3.5 trillion, party-line spending bill. And she's not up for a negotiation about it. As House Democratic leaders hold back Sinema's own Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill in order to push the Arizona Democrat and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to support a multitrillion-dollar spending bill, Sinema is making it crystal clear that her mind can't be changed. And that applies even as her own legislation becomes a bargaining chip in House Democrats' internal discussions. The $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill “is a historic win for our nation's everyday families and employers and, like every proposal, should be considered on its own merits,” said Sinema spokesperson John LaBombard. “Proceedings in the U.S. House will have no impact on Kyrsten's views about what is best for our country - including the fact that she will not support a budget reconciliation bill that costs $3.5 trillion.” It's the latest entrenched position from the first-term moderate, whose resistance to changing the Senate's filibuster rules and to supporting a $3.5 trillion spending bill is enraging progressives. Sinema and Manchin both helped pass Democrats' budget earlier this month, setting up that gargantuan spending bill, but both are resistant to a social spending package that ultimately meets its $3.5 trillion top line mark. Sinema in particular specifically opposes that spending goal, which was devised by Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Senate Democrats need all 50 of their members, including Manchin and Sinema, to pass a filibuster-proof reconciliation spending bill. On Sunday Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her members were still pursuing a bill that costs $3.5 trillion, but are hoping to finance it in part with tax enforcement and tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. Meanwhile, moderates in Pelosi's caucus are declining to back the Senate-passed budget unless Pelosi puts Sinema's Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill up for a vote on the House floor. In statement shortly after Sinema's, Manchin leaned on Pelosi and House leaders to act now on the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill instead of waiting for the Senate to pass a massive spending bill. "It would send a terrible message to the American people if this bipartisan bill is held hostage. I urge my colleagues in the House to move swiftly to get this once in a generation legislation to the President's desk for his signature," Manchin said. Jake Sherman on Twitter: In closed dem meeting, @SpeakerPelosi and @RepKClark are making the case that a vote against the rule that sets up budget vote would be a vote against female priorities — and a vote against women of color. “Women are watching to see what is happening here,” Pelosi said Kyrsten Sinema is also watching, but I doubt she counts as far as Pelosi is concerned. Jake Sherman was Reporting from the House late Monday on Twitter suggesting that there would be an attempt to pass a rule concerning the debate on the infrastructure bill that could include language that would “deem” the bipartisan bill approved. Politics of Sex Conference Play Audio Biden Announces FDA Approval of Pfizer COVID Vaccine https://twitter.com/breaking911/status/1429872489019084802?s=21 Play Audio But Pfizer & the FDA Have Sovereign Immunity https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html From CNBC on December 23rd: If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law. The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines. “It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren't offered much liability protection under the law.“ You also can't sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment. Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there's “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024. That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid. HHS declined CNBC's request for an interview. Dunn thinks a big reason for the unprecedented protection has to do with the expedited timeline. “When the government said, ‘We want you to develop this four or five times faster than you normally do,' most likely the manufacturers said to the government, ‘We want you, the government, to protect us from multimillion-dollar lawsuits,'” said Dunn. The quickest vaccine ever developed was for mumps. It took four years and was licensed in 1967. Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine was developed and cleared for emergency use in eight months — a fact that has fueled public mistrust of the coronavirus inoculation in the U.S. But drugmakers like Pfizer continue to reassure the public no shortcuts were taken. “This is a vaccine that was developed without cutting corners,” CEO Dr. Albert Bourla said in an interview with CNBC's “Squawk Box” on Monday. “This is a vaccine that is getting approved by all authorities in the world. That should say something.” The legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies doesn't just guard them against lawsuits. Dunn said it helps lower the cost of the immunizations. “The government doesn't want people suing the companies making the Covid vaccine. Because then, the manufacturers would probably charge the government a higher price per person per dose,” Dunn explained. Pfizer and Moderna did not return CNBC's request for comment on their legal protections. Remember, vaccine manufacturers aren't the ones approving their product for mass distribution. That is the job of the FDA. Which begs the question, can you sue the U.S. government if you have an extraordinarily bad reaction to a vaccine? Again, the answer is no. “You can't sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. “That's part of its sovereign immunity.” Sovereign immunity came from the king, explains Dunn, referring to British law before the American Revolution. “You couldn't sue the king. So, America has sovereign immunity, and even each state has sovereign immunity.” There are limited exceptions, but Dunn said he doesn't think they provide a viable legal path to hold the federal government responsible for a Covid vaccine injury. Taliban says they are drawing a red line https://news.sky.com/story/afghanistan-taliban-warns-there-will-be-consequences-if-biden-delays-withdrawal-of-us-troops-12388436 Play Audio: 0:00-0:49 Secretary of State Blinken Says America Will Be Asking Taliban Permission https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1429874831407915015?s=20 Play Audio: 0:00-0:36 Psalm of the Day: To the Word – Isaiah 8 Play Audio Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. This is Toby Sumpter with Crosspolitic News. You can find this and all of our shows at Crosspolitic.com or on our app, which you can download at your favorite app store, just search “Fight Laugh Feast”. A reminder: if you see news stories and links that you think we should cover on the daily news brief, please send them to news @ crosspolitic.com and don't forget to check deft wire dot com where we are constantly posting all our stories. 04Support Rowdy Christian media, and share this show or become a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member. You always get a free Fight Laugh Feast t-shirt with a membership and remember if you didn't make it to the Fight Laugh Feast Conference or Rally, club members have access to all the talks and lots more. Join today and have a great day.

Nikayla Johnson, is a Law student at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. After witnessing her father's arrest and imprisonment, Nikayla became inspired to pursue Law to fight the injustices that plague the types of communities she grew up in. Follow her work on LinkedIn and her featurette on: "The Hood Produces Quality", on YouTube.Support the show (https://cash.app/$LYFLINES)

Featured interview: Expected impacts of the US' decision to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem on the current Israel-Palestine conflict -미국의 예루살렘 영사관 복원 및 네타냐후 이스라엘 총리의 실권이 현재 이-팔 분쟁에 미칠 영향Guest: Professor George Bisharat, University of California Hastings College of the LawSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Under recent guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers have the legal right to require employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Dorit Reiss, law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law who specializes in vaccine law policy, talks about what that means in practice and takes your calls.

With nearly 90,000 rooftop solar systems, Hawaii is a national leader when it comes to solar power. Now, the state is taking the next step in its clean energy journey with a goal to electrify most ground transportation by 2035. In this episode of Grid Talk, host Marty Rosenberg talks with Constance Lau who is the President and CEO of Hawaiian Electric Industries, the parent of Hawaiian Electric. The discussion focuses on Hawaii's renewable energy portfolio and the impact of going all EV.“We have to get ready for a lot more provision of electricity because we’ll be providing electricity not to just the normal parts of the economy - but now if transportation starts switching over to use electricity as a fuel, we’ll have to be prepared to provide that as well,” said Lau.A concurrent goal would see Hawaii become carbon neutral 2045. That means Hawaii is ramping up renewables. Ms. Lau explains why it’s more complicated than just adding more capacity.“We’re seeing very interesting discussions where competing land use policies are needing to be discussed and judgement calls made by our policy makers.”She also talks about the challenge of integrating all the distributed systems to create an efficient grid for powering homes, businesses, and vehicles.Ms. Lau joined the HEI companies in 1984 and has served in numerous legal, financial, operating and executive roles. She is a nationally recognized leader in the fields of critical infrastructure, resilience and physical and cyber security, banking, and energy. Ms. Lau graduated from Yale College with a B.S. in administrative sciences. She earned a juris doctor from the University of California Hastings College of the Law and a master’s in business administration from the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

What happens when you discover that you have a voice, all because you took a risk to do DRAG! Sahaying into the world of advocacy and fundraising, attorney Michael Nguyen, discovered that his alter ego - Juicy Liu - gave voice to another side of himself who just needed to be unleashed on the world - FOR GOOD! Dive into this Dragolicious conversation as we explore what happens when a little bit of hair, makeup, and fabulous gowns brings you onto a stage...where winnine was never even part of the equation. About MichaelMichael T. Nguyen is a San Francisco-based speaker, advocate, and community organizer. When not protecting software inventions as a practicing patent attorney, Michael volunteers his time and energy as Chair of Gay Asian Pacific Alliance (GAPA), an advocacy organization that envisions a powerful Queer, Trans, Asian and Pacific Islander community that is seen, heard, and celebrated (www.gapa.org). Michael’s alter-ego drag persona, Juicy Liu, performed regularly in the Castro preCOVID, and has since started a queer comedy podcast called Juicy Thots (JuicyThots.com @JuicyThotsPod) Over the years, Michael/Juicy has personally raised over $60K for community organizations in the Bay Area, including the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, SF AIDS Foundation through AIDS/Lifecycle, and Livable City, an advocacy nonprofit that works to improve transportation, land use, open space, and environmental policies in San Francisco. Michael holds a JD from University of California Hastings College of the Law and a BA (cum laude) in Computer Science and Music from Southwestern University in Georgetown, TX. Accomplishments: • Crowned Miss GAPA 2016 (Juicy Liu) • Founded #JuicyThots monthly drag show, a QTPOC showcase in the Castro in 2018 • Founded #JuicyThots podcast, a queer comedy podcast interviewing LGBTQIA+ public figures in the Bay Area in 2020 • Elected to BALIF Board (Oldest and Largest LGBTQI Bar association) in 2019 • Completed three AIDS/Lifecycle rides (2015-2017) Connect With Michaelhttp://juicythots.com/ (Website) You can also listen to the podcast on…https://apple.co/2RBmUxZ ()https://bit.ly/2UxP9zN ()  https://spoti.fi/2JpvCfg ()https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/rick-clemons/the-coming-out-lounge ()  http://tun.in/pjtKR ()https://bit.ly/30kT4kL ()  https://bit.ly/2FVH55j () 

In this VSE Law Spotlight, we talk with Sarah Sepasi. Sarah Sepasi started her journey as a lawyer at the University of California Santa Barbara where she attained a degree in Political Science. After attaining her BS, she attained her Juris Doctor of law degree from the University of California Hastings College of Law. She […] The post Virtual Student Experiences Podcast Episode #36 – Law Spotlight with Sarah Sepasi appeared first on Virtual Student Experiences.

Dorit Reiss, law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law who specializes in vaccine law policy, talks about whether employers can legally mandate their employees to get vaccinated.  

Listen in to the ninth panel of the LEC's Civil Justice Fest, a webinar series held throughout the month of November aimed to help make sense of America's rapidly changing civil justice environment. This panel discussion featured: Alex Dahl, Founder & CEO, Strategic Policy Counsel, PLLC David Faigman, Chancellor & Dean; John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of Law, San Francisco Mark Spottswood, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law Melissa Whitney, Of Counsel, DLA Piper Moderator: Wendy Williams Berger, Judge, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida                                        

This is The EdUp Experience President Series Episode #39 - In this episode of The EdUp Experience, we talk with Frank Wu, President of Queens College. As the second Asian-American ever to lead a City University of New York campus, find out why Wu only has eyes on Queens College. From his time teaching at Howard University, which comes with a very interesting set of circumstances, to the passion Frank has for dispelling Model Minority Theory, Wu takes us on a journey of commitment and focus as he represents Asian-Americans and people of color in the workplace. Frank H. Wu was named president of Queens College, The City University of New York (CUNY), effective July 2020. Wu previously served as chancellor and dean, and then William L. Prosser Distinguished Professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Before joining UC Hastings, he was a member of the faculty at Howard University, the nation's leading historically black college/university (HBCU), for a decade. He served as dean of Wayne State University Law School in his hometown of Detroit, and he has been a visiting professor at University of Michigan; an adjunct professor at Columbia University; and a Thomas C. Grey Teaching Fellow at Stanford University. He taught at the Peking University School of Transnational Law in its inaugural year and again a decade later, and at Johns Hopkins University twice. This episode is brought to you by MDT Marketing! Thanks so much for tuning in. Join us again next time for another episode! Contact Us! Connect with the hosts - Elvin Freytes, Elizabeth Leiba, and Dr. Joe Sallustio ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening! We make education your business!

We have a slew of environmental issues ranging from climate change, to mountaintop removal mining, to the nationwide fracking boom. We have environmental laws responding to some of these issues, but many claim that the laws or their enforcement is inadequate. So, in recent years, in addition to pressing the federal government and state governments to regulate climate change emissions under the traditional environmental statutes, like the Clean Air Act, people have turned to the courts. Why is all of this so hard? If we know there’s a major problem, why are we struggling so much to develop legal responses? YLR Host Jeff Hayden, along with tonight's co-host, Josh Borger, is joined by Professor Dave Owen, University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, Phil Gregory an attorney with some 40 years of experience in environmental litigation and Shannon S. Broome, Managing Partner of the San Francisco Office of Hunton Andrews Kurth and who leads the firm’s California

Nathan Dowds grew up in Shelby, Ohio. After graduation in 2001, he joined the Army in July 2001. He served 2001-2005 as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. He deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 2002, Afghanistan 2002-2003, Iraq 2003-2004, and Afghanistan again in 2004. After coming home he used the GI Bill to attend Ohio State University and University of California Hastings College of Law. He currently lives in beautiful Granville, Ohio.

Part I: The Clemency of Roger Stone & COVID-19 in Prison. Guest: Hadar Aviram, Thomas Miller Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.  Her latest book is Yesterday's Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole. Part II: Using the Obama Administration's Playbook for Occupy for BLM Protests Today. Guest: Dave Lindorff: Investigative Reporter and the author the report in the Nation Tear Gas and Clubs in Lafayette Square Were Just the Beginning The post The Clemency of Roger Stone, COVID-19 in Prisons & Suppressing Protests appeared first on KPFA.

How to hold perpetrators of crimes against humanity or war crimes accountable? Bringing perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide to justice is a complex task, and it tends to be extremely difficult to find courts willing to prosecute perpetrators within the territories where crimes have been committed. However, when domestic trials or referrals to an international court are not possible, universal jurisdiction offers a way to prosecute perpetrators of these crimes in other states. Universal jurisdiction has thus made the unthinkable thinkable: allowing for the prosecution of internationally recognized crimes beyond the borders where they took place. In this episode, we take as a starting point the cases currently taking place in Germany against former officials of the Syrian regime. We talk to Naomi Roht-Arriaza and Thijs Bouwknegt about the meaning, impact, and challenges of trials taking place under universal jurisdiction. What can the courts actually do in such complex cases and what is the role of international solidarity in this story? What is the impact of such international efforts on both victims' expectations and local justice efforts? Naomi Roht-Arriaza is Professor of Law at The University of California Hastings College of the Law. She is the author of the impactful publication The Pinochet Effect: transitional justice in the age of human rights Thijs Bouwknegt is a researcher at NIOD and Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). His expertise is transitional justice, the ICC and universal jurisdiction.

In this SWE Diverse episode, SWE senior manager of research, Roberta Rincon, speaks with Dr. Rachel Korn, director of research on organization bias at the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law. Together they discuss the impact that the coronavirus pandemic could potentially have on gender inequality in engineering.

What do the grizzly Manson murders tell us today about long-term prison sentences? How do we regard people who commit violent crimes?   Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Hadar Aviram, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, to discuss punishment and parole, as well as Hadar’s new book on the subject, Yesterday’s Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole.   In today’s episode, Aaron and Hadar talk about the criminal system, the notion of parole, social science, empathy, public opinion on punishment and more. Using the Manson Family murders to illustrate these ideas, Hadar and Aaron consider the flaws of our system, the origins of parole and whether or not violent offenders are redeemable. Hadar’s new book offers a perspective on extreme punishment, examining the infamous murders committed by Charles Manson and his “family” of followers. Through 50 years of parole transcripts, Hadar argues that these high-profile cases helped institutionalize severe criminal penalties and transformed our understanding of parole in general.   Who decides if these criminal offenders are worthy of a second chance? And, how?   Professor Aviram specializes in criminal justice, civil rights, law and politics, and social movements. Her research­­ employs socio-legal perspectives and methodologies. Hadar publishes, teaches, and speaks on domestic violence, behavioral perspectives on prosecutorial and defense behavior, unconventional family units, animal rights, elder abuse, public trust in the police, correctional policy and budgeting, violence reduction, theoretical trends in crime and punishment, and the history of female crime and punishment. One of the leading voices nationwide against mass incarceration, Professor Aviram is a frequent media commentator on politics, immigration, criminal justice policy, civil rights, and the Trump Administration. Her blog, California Correctional Crisis, covers criminal justice policy in California.   For more information on Professor Aviram, please visit her bio page here. For more information on Professor Aviram’s latest book, Yesterday’s Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole, please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guests: Hadar Aviram     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Chinese authorities on Thursday moved to lock down at least three cities with a combined population of more than 18 million in an unprecedented effort to contain the deadly new virus that has sickened hundreds of people and spread to other parts of the world during the busy Lunar New Year travel period. Meanwhile, a World Health Organization emergency committee has decided against declaring the deadly coronavirus outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. But the committee is urging nations to remain vigilant as the disease, which so far has sickened 584 people and killed 17, is expected to increase and continue spreading to other countries.  Plus, Rohingya advocacy groups are praising the International Court of Justice's ruling ordering Myanmar to protect the ethnic group from genocide. The ruling comes after Myanmar's leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi argued against the genocide claims in front of the judges in December. Deputy Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, Phil Robertson reacts to the ruling and shares its significance. The House Democrats are focusing on what they say was US President Donald Trump's Trump's abuse of power on day two of arguments at his Senate impeachment trial. To dive deeper into what the Democrats are trying to do during their three days of opening arguments, Joel Richard Paul, professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law shares his insight. Those stories and more are all on today’s International Edtion.

In this episode, Hadar Aviram, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, discusses her new article “Progressive Punitivism: Notes on the Use of Punitive Social Control to Advance Social Justice Ends." She explains the role of punitivism in American culture, the ways in which it is being deployed to address progressive social causes, and potential ramifications of our collective inability to imagine new ways to addressing seemingly intractable problems in our society. Aviram is on Twitter at @aviramh.This episode was hosted by Guy Hamilton-Smith, Legal Fellow at the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law. Hamilton-Smith is on Twitter at @G_Padraic. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Scott Dodson, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Research at University of California Hastings College of the Law, discusses his article "Beyond Bias in Diversity Jurisdiction," which will appear in the Duke Law Journal. Dodson begins by explaining what diversity jurisdiction does and why it exists. He discusses the "bias" rationale for diversity jurisdiction, and identifies why it is no longer compelling, if it ever was. But he also explains why diversity jurisdiction could still be good policy, even without the bias rationale. And he argues that moving past bias, and considering other possible justifications, could be beneficial. Dodson is on Twitter at @ProfDodson. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Penny Wirsing, SWE FY19 President, discusses SWE's India Gender Bias Study with lead researcher Joan C. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law and Founding Director of the Center for WorkLife Law.

Does the Endangered Species Act authorize FWS to designate as “critical habitat” for an endangered species private land that is not inhabited by the species and that cannot supply habitat without a radical change in land use? Should the Supreme Court Grant Certiorari in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 17-71)?In January 5th conference, the Supreme Court is expected to take up the cert petition in a case arising out of the Fifth Circuit, Weyerhaeuser. The case involves federal government regulation of private land in Louisiana for the purpose of protecting an endangered species, the dusky gopher frog. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has asserted power under the Endangered Species Act to declare private land “critical habitat,” for the protection of this endangered species though the frog has not been seen there for 50 years and cannot live there absent a radical change in the use of the land. The Service has stated that it "will likely increasingly use” this authority to designate non-habitat areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. Several organizations have challenged the Service’s authority and are appealing the divided decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case or not, Weyerhaeuser will clearly be an important environmental law case.Featuring:Timothy S. Bishop, Partner, Mayer BrownProf. Dave Owen, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law San FranciscoTeleforum 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.

Does the Endangered Species Act authorize FWS to designate as “critical habitat” for an endangered species private land that is not inhabited by the species and that cannot supply habitat without a radical change in land use? Should the Supreme Court Grant Certiorari in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 17-71)?In January 5th conference, the Supreme Court is expected to take up the cert petition in a case arising out of the Fifth Circuit, Weyerhaeuser. The case involves federal government regulation of private land in Louisiana for the purpose of protecting an endangered species, the dusky gopher frog. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has asserted power under the Endangered Species Act to declare private land “critical habitat,” for the protection of this endangered species though the frog has not been seen there for 50 years and cannot live there absent a radical change in the use of the land. The Service has stated that it "will likely increasingly use” this authority to designate non-habitat areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. Several organizations have challenged the Service’s authority and are appealing the divided decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case or not, Weyerhaeuser will clearly be an important environmental law case.Featuring:Timothy S. Bishop, Partner, Mayer BrownProf. Dave Owen, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law San FranciscoTeleforum 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.

Robin Feldman of the University of California Hastings College of Law and author of Drug Wars talks about her book with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Feldman explores the various ways that pharmaceutical companies try to reduce competition from generic drugs. The conversation includes a discussion of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the sometimes crazy world of patent protection.

Joan C. Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, discusses serious misconceptions that the U.S. managerial and professional elite in the United States have about the so-called working class. Many people conflate "working class" with "poor"--but the working class is, in fact, the elusive, purportedly disappearing middle class. Williams argues that economic mobility has declined, and explains why suggestions like “they should move to where the jobs are” or "they should just go to college" are insufficient. She has some ideas for policy makers to create more and meaningful jobs for this demographic, an influential voting bloc. Williams is the author of the new book, “White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America.”

On April 25, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Lewis v. Clarke. Petitioners Brian and Michelle Lewis were driving on a Connecticut interstate when they were struck from behind by a vehicle driven by respondent William Clarke, a Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority employee, who was transporting Mohegan Sun Casino patrons. The Lewises sued Clarke in his individual capacity in state court. Clarke moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that because he was an employee of the Gaming Authority—an arm of the Mohegan Tribe entitled to sovereign immunity—and was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, he was similarly entitled to sovereign immunity against suit. He also argued, in the alternative, that he should prevail because the Gaming Authority was bound by tribal law to indemnify him. The trial court denied Clarke’s motion, but the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed, holding that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit because Clarke was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. It did not consider whether Clarke should be entitled to sovereign immunity based on the indemnification statute. -- By a vote of 8-0, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that (1) in a suit brought against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, the employee, not the tribe, is the real party in interest and the tribe's sovereign immunity is not implicated; and (2) an indemnification provision cannot, as a matter of law, extend sovereign immunity to individual employees who would otherwise not be protected. Justice Sotomayor’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan. Justices Thomas and Ginsburg filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- To discuss the case, we have Zachary Price, who is Associate Professor at University of California Hastings College of Law.

FY17 President of the Society of Women Engineers Jessica Rannow discusses SWE's Climate Control study with lead researcher Joan C. Williams, Distinguished Professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of Law and Founding Director of the Center for WorkLife Law. The results of the study suggest the engineering workplace climate is tougher for women and people of color than it is for white men.

Nathan shares an email he received from David Faigman, Acting Chancellor and Dean of the University of California Hastings College of the Law. The email, sent to students and alumni […]

Show #146 | Guests: Alan Snitow’s films include the award-winning “Between Two Worlds,” “Thirst”, “Secrets of Silicon Valley”, and “Blacks and Jews.” He was a producer at the top-rated KTVU-TV News, the Bay Area Fox affiliate, for 12 years. Before that, he was the News Director at Bay Area’s Pacifica Radio station, KPFA-FM, winning the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Gold Award for Best Local Newscast. Snitow served on the boards of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Film Arts Foundation, California Media Collaborative, Food and Water Watch, and as Board President of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. He is a member of SAG-AFTRA and a graduate of Cornell University. Deborah Kaufman’s films include the award-winning “Between Two Worlds,” “Thirst”, “Secrets of Silicon Valley”, and “Blacks and Jews.” She founded and for 13 years was Director of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, the first and largest independent Jewish film showcase in the world. Kaufman has been a Board member of the California Council for the Humanities, the New Israel Fund, and Amnesty International USA. She has been a consultant, programmer, lecturer, and activist with a variety of human rights, multicultural and media arts organizations. Kaufman is a graduate of University of California Hastings College of the Law and a member of the California Bar. | Show Summary: he once free-spirited city of San Francisco is now a “Company Town,” a playground for tech moguls of the “sharing economy.” Airbnb is the biggest hotel. Uber privatizes transit. And now these companies want political power as well. Meanwhile, middle class and ethnic communities are driven out by skyrocketing rents and evictions–sparking a grassroots backlash that challenges the oligarchy of tech. Is this the future of cities around the world? The feature-length documentary, “Company Town,” is the story of an intense election campaign to determine the fate of the city at the epicenter of the digital revolution. Produced and directed by Deborah Kaufman and Alan Snitow.

Frank Wu Chancellor & Dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco , Linked In Influencer , Huffington Post blogger ,voted most influential dean in legal education in 2012, as reported in National Jurist magazine, formerly lawyer with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco  Tim Sanders best selling author of four books including Love Is the Killer App and his latest, Today We Are Rich.  He was the former Chief Solutions Officer at Yahoo, and worked as an early stage employee at Mark Cuban's broadcast.com which had the biggest opening day gain in IPO history.  These days, he's consulting to major brands and speaking on the lecture circuit.  Nancy Lublin CEO and Chief Old Person of DoSomething.org . At the age 23, she turned a $5,000 inheritance into Dress for Success, a global entity that provides interview suits and career development training to women in need. Today, Dress for Success helps women reclaim their destinies in more than 120 cities in 10 countries.    Reynier Lezcano MS is a former Novice at a Cistercian monastery and creator of The VACE Method for Achievement™. He is currently a business consultant, and conducts leadership-training sessions throughout South Florida.

Summary of today's show: The US bishops sounded a clarion call to Catholics on April 12, 2012 with their landmark statement on religious liberty, “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty”. Scot Landry, Fr. Chip Hines, and Domenico Bettinelli go over the document in detail, discussing what it means for Catholics, showing how unprecedented is this courageous stance form the bishops, and how dangerous is the current threat to religious liberty, not for just Catholics, but for all people of faith—and even no faith—everywhere. They also discuss concert steps you can take to join the fight to protect your religious liberty Listen to the show: Today's host(s): Scot Landry and Fr. Chip Hines Today's guest(s): Domenico Bettinelli Links from today's show: Today's topics: The US bishops' statement on religious liberty 1st segment: Our First, Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together. Freedom is not only for Americans, but we think of it as something of our special inheritance, fought for at a great price, and a heritage to be guarded now. We are stewards of this gift, not only for ourselves but for all nations and peoples who yearn to be free. Catholics in America have discharged this duty of guarding freedom admirably for many generations. In 1887, when the archbishop of Baltimore, James Gibbons, was made the second American cardinal, he defended the American heritage of religious liberty during his visit to Rome to receive the red hat. Speaking of the great progress the Catholic Church had made in the United States, he attributed it to the “civil liberty we enjoy in our enlightened republic.” Indeed, he made a bolder claim, namely that “in the genial atmosphere of liberty [the Church] blossoms like a rose.”1 From well before Cardinal Gibbons, Catholics in America have been advocates for religious liberty, and the landmark teaching of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty was influenced by the American experience. It is among the proudest boasts of the Church on these shores. We have been staunch defenders of religious liberty in the past. We have a solemn duty to discharge that duty today. We need, therefore, to speak frankly with each other when our freedoms are threatened. Now is such a time. As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we address an urgent summons to our fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad. This has been noticed both near and far. Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke about his worry that religious liberty in the United States is being weakened. He called it the “most cherished of American freedoms”—and indeed it is. All the more reason to heed the warning of the Holy Father, a friend of America and an ally in the defense of freedom, in his recent address to American bishops: Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience. Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church's participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.2 Religious Liberty Under Attack—Concrete Examples Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Sadly, it is. This is not a theological or legal dispute without real world consequences. Consider the following: HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services has received wide attention and has been met with our vigorous and united opposition. In an unprecedented way, the federal government will both force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching and purport to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty. These features of the “preventive services” mandate amount to an unjust law. As Archbishop-designate William Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, testified to Congress: “This is not a matter of whether contraception may be prohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.”3 State immigration laws. Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what the government deems “harboring” of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity and pastoral care to those immigrants. Perhaps the most egregious of these is in Alabama, where the Catholic bishops, in cooperation with the Episcopal and Methodist bishops of Alabama, filed suit against the law: It is with sadness that we brought this legal action but with a deep sense that we, as people of faith, have no choice but to defend the right to the free exercise of religion granted to us as citizens of Alabama… . The law makes illegal the exercise of our Christian religion which we, as citizens of Alabama, have a right to follow. The law prohibits almost everything which would assist an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches.4 Altering Church structure and governance. In 2009, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut Legislature proposed a bill that would have forced Catholic parishes to be restructured according to a congregational model, recalling the trusteeism controversy of the early nineteenth century, and prefiguring the federal government's attempts to redefine for the Church “religious minister” and “religious employer” in the years since. Christian students on campus. In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit. Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City enacted a rule that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and sixty other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for scores of other uses. While this would not frequently affect Catholic parishes, which generally own their own buildings, it would be devastating to many smaller congregations. It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers. Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Notwithstanding years of excellent performance by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require us to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not somehow lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. And yet a federal court in Massachusetts, turning religious liberty on its head, has since declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government somehow violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion. Religious Liberty Is More Than Freedom of Worship Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas. What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration's contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face: Most troubling, is the Administration's underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its “religious” character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration's ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization's religious principles. This is deeply disappointing.5 This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue. The Most Cherished of American Freedoms In 1634, a mix of Catholic and Protestant settlers arrived at St. Clement's Island in Southern Maryland from England aboard the Ark and the Dove. They had come at the invitation of the Catholic Lord Baltimore, who had been granted Maryland by the Protestant King Charles I of England. While Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in Europe, Lord Baltimore imagined Maryland as a society where people of different faiths could live together peacefully. This vision was soon codified in Maryland's 1649 Act Concerning Religion (also called the “Toleration Act”), which was the first law in our nation's history to protect an individual's right to freedom of conscience. Maryland's early history teaches us that, like any freedom, religious liberty requires constant vigilance and protection, or it will disappear. Maryland's experiment in religious toleration ended within a few decades. The colony was placed under royal control, and the Church of England became the established religion. Discriminatory laws, including the loss of political rights, were enacted against those who refused to conform. Catholic chapels were closed, and Catholics were restricted to practicing their faith in their homes. The Catholic community lived under these conditions until the American Revolution. By the end of the 18th century, our nation's founders embraced freedom of religion as an essential condition of a free and democratic society. James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, described conscience as “the most sacred of all property.”6 He wrote that “the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”7 George Washington wrote that “the establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the Motive that induced me to the field of battle.”8 Thomas Jefferson assured the Ursuline Sisters—who had been serving a mostly non-Catholic population by running a hospital, an orphanage, and schools in Louisiana since 1727—that the principles of the Constitution were a “sure guarantee” that their ministry would be free “to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.”9 It is therefore fitting that when the Bill of Rights was ratified, religious freedom had the distinction of being the First Amendment. Religious liberty is indeed the first liberty. The First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Recently, in a unanimous Supreme Court judgment affirming the importance of that first freedom, the Chief Justice of the United States explained that religious liberty is not just the first freedom for Americans; rather it is the first in the history of democratic freedom, tracing its origins back the first clauses of the Magna Carta of 1215 and beyond. In a telling example, Chief Justice Roberts illustrated our history of religious liberty in light of a Catholic issue decided upon by James Madison, who guided the Bill of Rights through Congress and is known as the architect of the First Amendment: [In 1806] John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States, solicited the Executive's opinion on who should be appointed to direct the affairs of the Catholic Church in the territory newly acquired by the Louisiana Purchase. After consulting with President Jefferson, then-Secretary of State James Madison responded that the selection of church “functionaries” was an “entirely ecclesiastical” matter left to the Church's own judgment. The “scrupulous policy of the Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison explained, prevented the Government from rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.”10 That is our American heritage, our most cherished freedom. It is the first freedom because if we are not free in our conscience and our practice of religion, all other freedoms are fragile. If citizens are not free in their own consciences, how can they be free in relation to others, or to the state? If our obligations and duties to God are impeded, or even worse, contradicted by the government, then we can no longer claim to be a land of the free, and a beacon of hope for the world. Our Christian Teaching During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Americans shone the light of the Gospel on a dark history of slavery, segregation, and racial bigotry. The civil rights movement was an essentially religious movement, a call to awaken consciences, not only an appeal to the Constitution for America to honor its heritage of liberty. In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. boldly said, “The goal of America is freedom.” As a Christian pastor, he argued that to call America to the full measure of that freedom was the specific contribution Christians are obliged to make. He rooted his legal and constitutional arguments about justice in the long Christian tradition: I would agree with Saint Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.” Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.11 It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith. It is essential to understand the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law. Conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law for reasons of conscience—conscription being the most well-known example. An unjust law is “no law at all.” It cannot be obeyed, and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal. The Christian church does not ask for special treatment, simply the rights of religious freedom for all citizens. Rev. King also explained that the church is neither the master nor the servant of the state, but its conscience, guide, and critic. As Catholics, we know that our history has shadows too in terms of religious liberty, when we did not extend to others the proper respect for this first freedom. But the teaching of the Church is absolutely clear about religious liberty: The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs … whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits… . This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.12 As Catholics, we are obliged to defend the right to religious liberty for ourselves and for others. We are happily joined in this by our fellow Christians and believers of other faiths. A recent letter to President Obama from some sixty religious leaders, including Christians of many denominations and Jews, argued that “it is emphatically not only Catholics who deeply object to the requirement that health plans they purchase must provide coverage of contraceptives that include some that are abortifacients.”13 More comprehensively, a theologically rich and politically prudent declaration from Evangelicals and Catholics Together made a powerful case for greater vigilance in defense of religious freedom, precisely as a united witness animated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.14 Their declaration makes it clear that as Christians of various traditions we object to a “naked public square,” stripped of religious arguments and religious believers. We do not seek a “sacred public square” either, which gives special privileges and benefits to religious citizens. Rather, we seek a civil public square, where all citizens can make their contribution to the common good. At our best, we might call this an American public square. The Lord Jesus came to liberate us from the dominion of sin. Political liberties are one part of that liberation, and religious liberty is the first of those liberties. Together with our fellow Christians, joined by our Jewish brethren, and in partnership with Americans of other religious traditions, we affirm that our faith requires us to defend the religious liberty granted us by God, and protected in our Constitution. Martyrs Around the World In this statement, as bishops of the United States, we are addressing ourselves to the situation we find here at home. At the same time, we are sadly aware that religious liberty in many other parts of the world is in much greater peril. Our obligation at home is to defend religious liberty robustly, but we cannot overlook the much graver plight that religious believers, most of them Christian, face around the world. The age of martyrdom has not passed. Assassinations, bombings of churches, torching of orphanages—these are only the most violent attacks Christians have suffered because of their faith in Jesus Christ. More systematic denials of basic human rights are found in the laws of several countries, and also in acts of persecution by adherents of other faiths. If religious liberty is eroded here at home, American defense of religious liberty abroad is less credible. And one common threat, spanning both the international and domestic arenas, is the tendency to reduce the freedom of religion to the mere freedom of worship. Therefore, it is our task to strengthen religious liberty at home, in this and other respects, so that we might defend it more vigorously abroad. To that end, American foreign policy, as well as the vast international network of Catholic agencies, should make the promotion of religious liberty an ongoing and urgent priority. “All the Energies the Catholic Community Can Muster” What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected. In insisting that our liberties as Americans be respected, we know as bishops that what our Holy Father said is true. This work belongs to “an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture.” As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the two. There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with Christians, Jews, and others, to impress upon our elected representatives the importance of continued protection of religious liberty in a free society. We address a particular word to those holding public office. It is your noble task to govern for the common good. It does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious believers as a threat to our common life; to the contrary, they are essential to its proper functioning. It is also your task to protect and defend those fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This ought not to be a partisan issue. The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so. We recognize that a special responsibility belongs to those Catholics who are responsible for our impressive array of hospitals, clinics, universities, colleges, schools, adoption agencies, overseas development projects, and social service agencies that provide assistance to the poor, the hungry, immigrants, and those faced with crisis pregnancies. You do the work that the Gospel mandates that we do. It is you who may be forced to choose between the good works we do by faith, and fidelity to that faith itself. We encourage you to hold firm, to stand fast, and to insist upon what belongs to you by right as Catholics and Americans. Our country deserves the best we have to offer, including our resistance to violations of our first freedom. To our priests, especially those who have responsibility for parishes, university chaplaincies, and high schools, we ask for a catechesis on religious liberty suited to the souls in your care. As bishops we can provide guidance to assist you, but the courage and zeal for this task cannot be obtained from another—it must be rooted in your own concern for your flock and nourished by the graces you received at your ordination. Catechesis on religious liberty is not the work of priests alone. The Catholic Church in America is blessed with an immense number of writers, producers, artists, publishers, filmmakers, and bloggers employing all the means of communications—both old and new media—to expound and teach the faith. They too have a critical role in this great struggle for religious liberty. We call upon them to use their skills and talents in defense of our first freedom. Finally to our brother bishops, let us exhort each other with fraternal charity to be bold, clear, and insistent in warning against threats to the rights of our people. Let us attempt to be the “conscience of the state,” to use Rev. King's words. In the aftermath of the decision on contraceptive and sterilization mandates, many spoke out forcefully. As one example, the words of one of our most senior brothers, Cardinal Roger Mahony, thirty-five years a bishop and recently retired after twenty-five years as archbishop of Los Angeles, provide a model for us here: “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic community can muster.”15 A Fortnight for Freedom In particular, we recommend to our brother bishops that we focus “all the energies the Catholic community can muster” in a special way this coming summer. As pastors of the flock, our privileged task is to lead the Christian faithful in prayer. Both our civil year and liturgical year point us on various occasions to our heritage of freedom. This year, we propose a special “fortnight for freedom,” in which bishops in their own dioceses might arrange special events to highlight the importance of defending our first freedom. Our Catholic institutions also could be encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths, and indeed, all who wish to defend our most cherished freedom. We suggest that the fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, be dedicated to this “fortnight for freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome. Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty. In addition to this summer's observance, we also urge that the Solemnity of Christ the King—a feast born out of resistance to totalitarian incursions against religious liberty—be a day specifically employed by bishops and priests to preach about religious liberty, both here and abroad. To all our fellow Catholics, we urge an intensification of your prayers and fasting for a new birth of freedom in our beloved country. We invite you to join us in an urgent prayer for religious liberty. Almighty God, Father of all nations, For freedom you have set us free in Christ Jesus (Gal 5:1). We praise and bless you for the gift of religious liberty, the foundation of human rights, justice, and the common good. Grant to our leaders the wisdom to protect and promote our liberties; By your grace may we have the courage to defend them, for ourselves and for all those who live in this blessed land. We ask this through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, our patroness, and in the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with whom you live and reign, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. * Acknowledgements* Excerpts from The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, General Editor, copyright © 1966 by America Press, Inc. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI, Ad limina address to bishops of the United States, January 19, 2012, copyright © 2012, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City. Used with permission. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2012, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. The document Our First, Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty, was developed by the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the Administrative Committee of the USCCB at its March 2012 meeting as a statement of the Committee and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned. Msgr. Ronny E. Jenkins, JCD General Secretary, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty Chairman Most Rev. William E. Lori, Archbishop-designate of Baltimore Bishop Members Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap, Archbishop of Philadelphia Most Rev. Wilton D. Gregory, Archbishop of Atlanta Most Rev. John C. Nienstedt, Archbishop of St. Paul–Minneapolis Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, Archbishop of Mobile Most Rev. J. Peter Sartain, Archbishop of Seattle Most Rev. John O. Barres, Bishop of Allentown Most Rev. Daniel E. Flores, Bishop of Brownsville Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix Most Rev. Thomas J. Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield, IL Bishop Consultants Most Rev. José H. Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles Most Rev. Stephen E. Blaire, Bishop of Stockton Most Rev. Joseph P. McFadden, Bishop of Harrisburg Most Rev. Richard E. Pates, Bishop of Des Moines Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, Bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend ENDNOTES Cardinal James Gibbons, Address upon taking possession of Santa Maria in Trastevere, March 25, 1887. Benedict XVI, Ad limina address to bishops of the United States, January 19, 2012. Most Rev. William E. Lori, Chairman, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, Oral Testimony Before the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, February 28, 2012. Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, Archbishop of Mobile, August 1, 2011. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, Statement, January 24, 2012. James Madison, “Property,” March 29, 1792, in The Founding Fathers, eds. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), accessed March 27, 2012. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html James Madison, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment,” June 20, 1785, in The Founding Fathers, accessed March 27, 2012. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washington's God, 2006. Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States (Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1950), 678. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 694, 703 (2012). Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963. Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), no. 2, in The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Walter M. Abbott (New York: Guild Press, 1966). Letter from Leith Anderson et al. to President Obama, December 21, 2011 (available at www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/To-President-NonCatholics-RelExemptionSigned.pdf). Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “In Defense of Religious Freedom,” First Things, March 2012. Cardinal Roger Mahony, “Federal Government Mandate for Contraceptive/Sterilization Coverage,” Cardinal Roger Mahony Blogs L.A. (blog), January 20, 2012, cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2012/01/federal-government-mandate-for.html