Podcasts about capital university law school

President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 10 days and in his first month in office than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Trump critics say the orders greatly exceed his constitutional authority.Those orders range from tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada, to pauses on foreign aid and crackdowns on illegal immigration to bans on transgender people serving in the military and the use of federal funds for gender-affirming medical care for minors.Court challenges to Trump's policies started on Inauguration Day and have continued at a furious pace since Jan. 20. The administration is facing some 70 lawsuits nationwide challenging his executive orders and moves to downsize the federal government.The Republican-controlled Congress is putting up little resistance, so the court system is ground zero for pushback. Judges have issued more than a dozen orders at least temporarily blocking aspects of Trump's agenda, ranging from an executive order to end U.S. citizenship extended automatically to people born in this country to giving Musk's team access to sensitive federal data.Executive Actions: 108, Executive Orders: 73, Proclamations: 23, Memorandums: 12Mark Brown, Constitutional Law expert and professor at Capital University Law School talks with us about the constitutionality of executive orders. Mark holds Capital's Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He joined the faculty in 2003 after having taught at Stetson University, the University of Illinois and The Ohio State University.Mark has authored and co-authored works in various books and academic journals, including the Boston College Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the Iowa Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the American University Law Review, and the Oregon Law Review, as well as others. Prior to academia, Mark clerked for the Honorable Harry Wellford, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also served as a Supreme Court Fellow under the Chief Justice of the United States during the 1993 October Term. Mark's research interests include Constitutional Law and Constitutional Litigation, courses he also teaches. He has also taught Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. His public interest litigation presently focuses on public access to the political process.

James Lane is a plant manager with Trivium Packaging. He works out of their Youngstown plant, which is the largest of many plants that Trivium operates, and he's skilled in operations management, continuous improvement, and business process improvement. James is also a strong media and communications professional, having earned a J.D. degree focused on corporate law from Capital University Law School, which has informed his leadership in union environments and contract negotiations. James recently spoke with Plant Services editor in chief Thomas Wilk about his journey from military service to manufacturing leadership in the packaging industry.

Join us as we explore the fascinating case of an Amish Family facing legal challenges due to their religious beliefs and traffic violations, alongside law students Troy and Bella from Capital University Law School. The episode kicks off with a discussion on the Amish family's predicament, where a traffic violation escalated into a criminal charge of child endangerment. This case serves as a perfect backdrop to explore the intricacies of legal procedures, the different types of pleas, and the consequences of each. Our host provides an insightful breakdown of how traffic violations can lead to criminal charges, illustrating the complexities that often arise in the legal system. As the conversation unfolds, we delve deeper into constitutional rights and the challenges of self-representation in court. The Amish family's refusal to hire an attorney due to religious beliefs adds another layer of complexity to the case. This scenario prompts a discussion on the importance of understanding one's rights and the potential pitfalls of navigating the legal system without professional guidance. The discussion turns to the value of having an advocate who can maintain objectivity and provide sound legal advice, something that individuals representing themselves often lack. The episode also touches on the historical context of judicial review, referencing the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison. This historical perspective enriches the discussion, providing listeners with a broader understanding of how constitutional challenges are addressed within the legal framework. For aspiring lawyers and legal enthusiasts, this episode offers a treasure trove of insights. It underscores the importance of practical experience and the need to continually learn beyond the classroom. Key Moments(01:00) The Amish Traffic Case(05:30) Legal Procedures and Pleas(15:00) Constitutional Challenges(25:45) Judicial Review and Historical Context(35:20) Representing Yourself in Court(45:00) Legal Clinics and ResourcesSubmit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Bradley is a Capital University Law School graduate and currently works as the Managing Member and Attorney at Miller Law and the Founder of the New Modern Lawyer Podcast. In this episode, I sit down with Bradley, a trailblazer in the world of virtual law firms. His path to becoming a lawyer is one of self-discovery and innovation, beginning with a dream of becoming a judge and evolving into something much more.Bradley and I dive into the early challenges he faced in law school, from the culture shock of transitioning from undergrad to navigating the rigors of 1L. But it was his unwavering solo attitude—his ability to carve out his path—that became a defining characteristic throughout his career.Right after law school, Bradley took the bold step of hanging his shingle. This move set the stage for him to join Burton Law and help pioneer one of the first virtual law firms—back in 2011 when working remotely as a lawyer was almost unheard of. Fast forward to the pandemic, and Bradley's approach became the blueprint for modern legal practice.We discuss his role as a lawyer transformation coach and his podcast, The New Modern Lawyer, where he shares key principles of virtual law and insights from the CLEs he's led over the years. Finally, we zero in on goal-setting and the importance of being intentional, specific, and relentless in pursuit of what you want.Bradley's wisdom on virtual law, personal discipline, and the future of the legal profession is not to be missed. For more insights, be sure to check out his podcast and follow him on LinkedIn.Bradley's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/bradleymillerBradley's Website: NewModernLawyer.comBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lawyersinthemaking.substack.com

Hard Truths About Soft Skills and Challenging People with Tommie Jo BrodeIn this episode, Shane Dawson of Dinsmore and Shohl, LLP and Steve Armstrong of Armstrong Peake PLLC interview Tommie Jo Brode of Venice Solutions Group regarding soft skills and how to deal with challenging people in challenging situations.Tommie is an attorney and consultant who focuses on workplace communication often between management and employees. Good communication can reduce litigation and costs for employers, both in the workers' compensation context and in the employment law context. Tommie graduated from Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, and she works with clients regionally.  Tommie represents clients regionally from offices in Ohio and Florida.  She has defended employers in workers' compensation claims, along with EEOC, ADA, FMLA and other claims. She has also managed workers' compensation programs as well.  You can find Tommie on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommie-jo-brode-469b1194/.To learn more about DRI and the Workers' Compensation Committee visit www.DRI.org.#DRILawyer#DRICommunity

Carolyn Harding with Judge Terri Jamison, candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Terri Jamison began her work history in social work with the West Virginia Department of Welfare. She became a trailblazer when she was one of few women to join the United Mine Workers of America. She moved to Columbus, Ohio when mass layoffs shut the mines down. As a single parent, she worked a variety of jobs before becoming a small business owner for more than 16 years. She became a nontraditional student at Columbus State Community College, ultimately graduating cum laude from Franklin University with a Bachelor of Science degree. She enrolled in Capital University Law School where she obtained her juris doctor degree. As an attorney, she stood beside families in crisis, not corporations, representing them in various courts around Ohio and in U. S. District Court, in administrative hearings, and later being hired to preside over unemployment compensation claims. She comes to this campaign with more than a decade as a judge, having served on the Franklin County Court Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch, and now on the Court of Appeals, Tenth District. Judge Jamison has often been quoted, “when the law is not on your side, you deserve to be heard, treated with dignity and respect.” Welcome to GrassRoot Ohio. When everyday folk go to the polls, most voters have an idea of who the candidates are, what party they represent, and if they are engaged, they have some idea of the candidates' platforms. But even engaged voters, get a bit overwhelmed when it comes to judges. There are usually many judges on the ballot - and very few opportunities to hear what each candidate hopes to bring to the table. Ohio early voting started Feb 21 and primary election day is March 19, and my hope is that each voter does their own due diligence for all the candidates on their ballot, and this November- All Ohioans will vote for the open seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. www.votejudgejamison.com GrassRoot Ohio - Conversations with everyday people working on important issues, here in Columbus and all around Ohio. Every Friday 5:00pm, EST on 94.1FM & streaming worldwide @ WGRN.org, Sundays at 2:00pm EST on 92.7/98.3 FM and streams @ WCRSFM.org, and Sundays at 4:00pm EST, at 107.1 FM, Wheeling/Moundsville WV on WEJP-LP FM. Contact Us if you would like GrassRoot Ohio on your local LP-FM community radio station. Face Book: www.facebook.com/GrassRootOhio/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/grassroot_ohio/ All shows/podcasts archived at SoundCloud! @user-42674753 Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/.../grassroot-ohio/id1522559085 YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCAX2t1Z7_qae803BzDF4PtQ/ Intro and Exit music for GrassRoot Ohio is "Resilient" by Rising Appalachia: youtu.be/tx17RvPMaQ8 There's a time to listen and learn, a time to organize and strategize, And a time to Stand Up/ Fight Back!

Recent years have seen unprecedented controversies about election rules, including mail-in ballots and drop boxes, partisan and racial gerrymandering, early voting, ballot harvesting, and methods of vote counting. Because election laws have partisan consequences, the legislators who make election laws, the officials who administer elections, and the judges who decide election cases are often suspected of exercising power so as to increase their own side’s electoral chances. As we look ahead to future elections, this panel will consider what it means to have a fair election process and how much deference judges should pay to the determinations of officials whose actions in formulating and applying election laws may have partisan motivations.Featuring:Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of KentuckyProf. Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of LawHon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former Commissioner, Federal Election CommissionModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Judge Paul Herbert is a lifelong resident of Columbus, Ohio and has been practicing law for 30 years. He and his wife Barb have raised two daughters. Judge Herbert is a graduate of The OhioState University and Capital University Law School while working and attending school at night. After a brief time in private general practice Judge Herbert joined the staff of the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office and served as a trial attorney. In 1996 he assumed the role of Clerk of the Franklin County Municipal Court where he spent the next 7 years before being elected Judge in 2003. Judge Herbert was re-elected to that position in 2009, and again in 2015. While serving as a Judge, he proposed a specialized program focusing on Human Trafficking victims who have been charged with the misdemeanor offense of solicitation. CATCH (Changing Actions to Change Habits) was started in September 2009. The results have been nothing short of miraculous.

In this episode, host Vivek Ramaswamy discusses the controversial prosecution of Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, diving into the legal complexities surrounding the case. Joined by guest Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman and law professor, they explore the payment made to Stormy Daniels during Trump's campaign and whether it constituted an unlawful campaign contribution. They also discuss the potential consequences of the indictment and the implications of campaign finance laws. Throughout the conversation, they raise concerns about the rule of law, the dangers of politicized prosecutions, and the future of political discourse.Bradley A. Smith, an accomplished law professor and former FEC Commissioner, is a leading expert in election law. Nominated to the FEC by President Bill Clinton, Smith has an impressive background that includes teaching at Capital University Law School and authoring numerous articles on campaign finance. With experience in both academia and practice, he has testified before Congress, made appearances on radio and television, and contributed to major publications. Smith holds a B.A. from Kalamazoo College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Time codes:00:01:15 - Introduction to the convention's theme and purpose.00:02:37 - First speaker introduces a groundbreaking new technology.00:05:56 - The audience is engaged in an interactive Q&A session with the first speaker.00:08:45 - A panel discussion begins, focusing on the impact of recent advancements in science and technology.00:11:33 - The second speaker presents research on the future of renewable energy.00:14:25 - A demonstration of an innovative sustainable energy solution.00:16:18 - The third speaker discusses the ethical implications of artificial intelligence.00:18:52 - The audience is asked to consider the potential consequences of AI on society.00:21:04 - A thought-provoking debate begins on the benefits and risks of genetic engineering.00:23:47 - The fourth speaker provides an update on a major scientific discovery.00:26:29 - A captivating visual presentation of the discovery and its potential implications.00:28:45 - The audience participates in a hands-on activity related to the discovery.00:31:23 - A panel of experts discusses the future of space exploration.00:34:17 - The fifth speaker shares their experience working on a high-profile space mission.00:36:59 - A sneak peek at an upcoming documentary on the history of space exploration.00:39:44 - The sixth speaker discusses the potential of virtual reality in various industries.00:42:30 - A live demonstration of a cutting-edge virtual reality experience.00:44:21 - The audience is invited to try the virtual reality experience for themselves.00:47:08 - A panel debate on the societal implications of mass surveillance technologies.00:50:02 - The seventh speaker shares insights on the development of quantum computing.00:52:39 - The audience is treated to a live demonstration of quantum computing capabilities.00:55:27 - The eighth speaker discusses the role of biotechnology in addressing global challenges.00:58:14 - A showcase of groundbreaking biotechnology innovations.01:00:52 - The ninth speaker explores the future of transportation and its impact on the environment.01:03:37 - A panel discussion on the ethical considerations of emerging technologies and their potential impact on society.

In this episode Luis speaks with TV's #1 relationship expert! Pastor Cal from the TV show Married At First Sight. Tune in to learn how to make your marriage and your finances stronger as a power couple.  Pastor Cal is a sought-after magnetic speaker, acclaimed author, marriage coach, and relationship expert. As an ordained minister and pastoral counselor, Pastor Cal has dedicated nearly three decades to public speaking, teaching and relationship- building. He holds a BA in Theology from Oakwood University, a Masters of Divinity from Andrews University as well as a law degree from Columbus, Ohio's Capital University Law School. Pastor Cal and his wife, First Lady Wendy, operate the successful marriage coaching organization, Marriage Ain't For Punks, and he also serves the thriving Atlanta congregation, Progression Church, as the lead pastor. He and Wendy currently travel internationally conducting marriage and relationship conferences, boot camps and seminars. When he is not on the Married at First Sight set, he can often be found posting about his life on Instagram to his hundreds of thousands of followers.  Notes: In this episode Luis and Pastor Cal talk about: Marital C.P.R. Why every marriage should have a goal. Establishing a set standard in your marriage and your finances. The importance of community and how it helps your marriage. And much more…… Resources: Pastor Cal's Website Marriage Ain't For Punks website Pastor Cal's Facebook Pastor Cal's Instagram Pastor Cal's Twitter Luis' LinkedIN Luis' Twitter Luis' IG On My Way to Wealth YouTube Channel  

Dr. Haass, author of the New York Times best seller The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens, discusses how to reenvision citizenship if American democracy is to thrive or even survive. His guide is particularly relevant for college students who are learning how to navigate and participate fully in life on campus and in civic society. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today's Educators Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have CFR President Richard Haass with us to discuss the themes in his new book, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Dr. Haass needs no introduction, but of course I will say a few words. He is in his twentieth year as president of CFR. He has served as special assistant and senior Middle East advisor to President George H.W. Bush, served in the U.S. State Department as a director of policy planning under Secretary of State Colin Powell, and held various positions in the Defense and State Departments during the Carter and Reagan administrations. He is the author or editor of fourteen books on U.S. foreign policy, one book on management and, of course, this one on American democracy. So, Richard, thank you very much for being with us today to discuss this book. I thought we could begin with you giving us an overview of your book, why you wrote it and, more specifically, why the focus on obligations rather than on rights. HAASS: Well, thank you, Irina. Thank you all for giving us some of your time. So really two separate questions—why the book and why the focus on obligations. Why the book is, look, I'm a foreign policy guy, for better and for worse. But increasingly, when I thought about all the challenges this country faced in the world, they all presume that we would have a functioning democracy that others in the world might want to emulate, others in the world would feel comfortable depending on, relying on. Our foes in the world might be deterred by. That we would generate the resources we needed and the political unity we needed to act in the world. Increasingly all that came under—has come under question. So I don't see how you can talk about American national security and just talk about the sort of stuff that the Pentagon or State Department do, but increasingly our ability to have a working democracy, to have a society that has the bandwidth and the unity to carry out our foreign policy. That's in question. And that's one of the lessons of the last few years. We assume these things are just fine at our peril. So, you know, that's what led me to write this book. And I actually have come to see the state of American democracy as, in many ways, the biggest threat to our national security. More than China, or Russia, or climate change, or anything else, because this is the foundation of our ability to contend with all these external threats. Moving to the question of “why obligations,” look, no one should get me wrong here. Rights are central to this American experiment, as I expect all of you know. You know, the Bill of Rights was politically essential in order to get several states that were holding out to ratify the new Constitution. A lot of people understood that the Articles of Confederation were woefully inadequate, but it was something very different to say they were prepared to sign on for a much stronger federal government and a much stronger executive. And the condition that several states set then was, hey, we need this Bill of Rights which protects states and individuals from the reach of the federal government. Over the last nearly two and a half centuries, we've lived with the reality that there's often a gap between our political realities and the Bill of Rights, you know, what Lincoln called the “unfinished work” of this country remains unfinished. I fully appreciate that. But just try a thought experiment: Just imagine that somehow we managed to close the gap between our reality and the Declaration of Independence, and suddenly rights were 100 percent what they ought to be. Then the question you have to ask yourself, if we were to reach that point, would American foreign policy be on safe, firm ground? And the answer is no. Because what would happen is someone would say, hey, the mother has an absolute right to choose. And someone else would say, no, the unborn, they have absolute rights. Or someone would say, I have all sorts of rights under the Second Amendment to bear arms and someone else would say, oh, hold on a minute, I've got rights to public safety, to physical safety, and so on and so forth. You know, it wasn't by accident that Justice Steve Breyer said that the toughest cases before the court are right versus wrong, but rights versus rights. So what do we do? How do we avoid the clash of rights which, at a minimum, would mean gridlock, and worse yet, in all sorts of situations, one could imagine things descending into violence. If people felt that adamantly about their rights, and if their rights were not adequately recognized, from their point of view, what's holding them back from political violence? And that's what led me to this book. And that's what led me to obligations. Obligation is the other side of the citizenship coin. Rights are essential. To use the political science idea, they are necessary, but they're not sufficient. We need obligations. We need to complement rights, supplement rights with—we need obligations to one another—you to me, me to you, Irina, me to everybody on this Zoom—and vice versa. And then, second of all, we all need to think about our obligations to the country. What do we—in the spirit of John F. Kennedy—what do we owe this country? Only if we balance or complement rights with obligations do I think this experiment of American democracy has a good chance of surviving another two and a half centuries. FASKIANOS: So when you were writing this book, Richard—clearly we all need to read it—but what was your target audience? HAASS: It's a good question. Let me give you a couple of answers. One is, and it's something you and I know from our work here, I'm always interested in finding multipliers in American society. So in this case, it's a lot of the kinds of people on this call, educators, because they all have students. So whether they're administrators, classroom teachers, you know, university, four-year schools, two-year schools, colleges, at the high school level, what have you. So educators are my principal—if not THE principal audience, as the principal multiplier. Obviously, students as well because, you know, particularly if you think about it, college students by—well, we can talk about this more—but they're a perfect audience for this. I'm also, though, interested in other multipliers in this society. One is journalists. They have tremendous reach. They have obligations. Religious authorities, the people who give the sermons. You know, tens if not even more than a hundred million Americans hear sermons every week. Well, why can't religious authorities do things like discourage political violence, say nothing justifies violence, or civility is always called for, or compromise ought to always be considered. Or, how about this, you are your brother's and sister's keeper. You have an obligation to look out for the common good. Who better than a religious authority to do that? I think parents have certain special opportunities, if you will, to carry out these obligations, to model certain behavior. So I'm interested in all of them. And what I found is a lot of—you know, and the good news is I think it's resonating. Particularly a lot of older people know there's something amiss in this country. And what they want to make sure is that younger people get a chance to take this in. FASKIANOS: Right. So in your book, you have laid out ten principles. And under the ten principles— HAASS: We call them obligations, Irina. FASKIANOS: Ten obligations, yes. So what are the key insights that you would want, or the obligations that you would want educators and students to take away from reading this book, and that you would want educators to promote or to share with their students? HAASS: Well, first of all, all ten I think are valuable. You know, if we were in a religious context and you say which of the commandments would you jettison, you know, we all might have our favorite for jettisoning, but—Mel Brooks had his ideas in one of his movies. But I think all ten are necessary, in this case. I'd begin with being informed, which I think is particularly relevant to this kind of a group. You know, Jefferson's notion of the informed citizen is basic to a democracy. And then I think it immediately then calls for a conversation on exactly what is it we mean by being informed in terms of the basics. What do we mean in terms of current issues that come and go? How then do you get informed? How do you avoid being misinformed? I think it's a really rich conversation. Again, with students, we want to urge them, once they are informed, to get involved. To use an old quote of Ronald Reagan's, we don't just want patriotism we want informed patriotism. So we want people to be involved, but we want them to be involved once they are informed. You know, we can go through all of them, just things like behaviors, civility, compromise, observation of norms. Those are all important. Just kind of attitudes and behaviors become important. Then there's more specific things. I'd love for younger people to get involved in public service. Several states have instituted, like California, a large public service program. I think it's great. I think too many of us in this country are now leading very separate lives defined by geography, educational attainment, wealth, race, religion, gender, what have you. I love things that produce a bit of common experience, I think would be good. I'm obviously big, and we'll probably get to this, about teaching civics. I think it's simply wrong that anybody should leave a campus without having been exposed to civics. We wouldn't let them leave the campus if they couldn't read or write. Why would we want them to leave a campus if they didn't have—if they weren't, essentially, literate about citizenship, given how important that is. So, you know, I thought hard about the obligations. And I just think that this is what is required if American democracy is going to prosper. FASKIANOS: We've talked a lot about how this book is a perfect fit for the first-year experience and for incoming students to college campuses. And I thought you could talk a little bit about the connection of this book, and why it would be such a perfect fit. HAASS: Couple of things. One is, the average freshman is pretty close to eighteen. So what a perfect time to be doing this, because they're going to have the right to vote. And we want them to vote. And we want them to be informed voters. So that's one thing. But this is—the timing is perfect for people stepping onto campus. Second of all, in addition to voting, campuses, like any other, if you will, environment are political environments. And so over the course of their two, three, four, however many years on campus, students are going to be in all sorts of formal and informal, structured and unstructured, settings in which politics are going to come up. So I believe they need some help in navigating what they're going to experience on a—in classrooms, over drinks, over coffee, study groups, what have you. I think it's really essential there. I also like the idea of first-year experiences—and first principles—I love the idea that people read something and have it in common and they can talk about it. So whether you're a flute major, or a physics major, or a computer sciences major, I love the fact that everybody's reading something. And this is something with real, I think, practical payoffs, again, for the years on campus, and for life afterwards. So I actually think it's a good thing. And, just to be clear, the book doesn't tell them about what's the, quote/unquote, “right” or “wrong” policy on any issue. It's simply about how one approaches political life, whether it's on campus or beyond. And I just think it's—for eighteen-year-olds about to embark on a college experience and on a life experience, I think the timing's pretty good. FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Jim Zaffiro, who is a professor of political science at Central College. And he asks along the same lines— HAASS: Central College in Iowa? FASKIANOS: Yes. HAASS: I got a—I was lucky enough to get an honorary degree from Central College in Iowa. It's a wonderful, wonderful place. FASKIANOS: So he would like to know, how would you present the nature and significance of this as a common reading for eighteen-year-olds? Like, how would pitch it to an incoming freshman about why they should read it? So from the student's perspective? HAASS: It's a good question. Like it or not, government is essential to our lives. And indeed, both whether you like it or not, that makes the case for learning about it. It's going to affect you. But, more important, government is not some impersonal force. Government is affected by citizens. So I want students to understand that government is what we make of it. And it's who we vote for. It's who we reward or penalize politically. It's who they work for. I'd love them to get involved themselves. Not just in campaigns, one day some of them may choose that as a career—I did for a long time—in public service. And it could be—in my case it was working on the policy side. It could be the military. It could be intelligence. I've got a daughter who works for the Department of Sanitation here in the City of New York. There's all sorts of ways to have a public service kind of career. But even if you don't, we still, as citizens, have the right—and I would say, the obligation—to vote. And if they don't, well, that's just another way of saying you're going to let this other person decide what your future is. Why would anybody want to abdicate the chance to influence their own future and lets the person sitting in the seat next to them make choices that would affect them? So I would want students—I would want to remind them that government is responsive. That we've made enormous changes. I think a lot of young people have a really negative view of government. They see what's happened in recent years—whether it's the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or economic crises, or pandemics, or climate. And a lot of them are very down on government. And I get it. I get it. But government also, over the decades, has delivered in important ways. And even when it's failed, the failure wasn't inevitable. So I want to give students a sense of possibility. And that government is really important. And the good news, in a non-authoritarian, democratic system, is governments are potentially responsive, and that there are real opportunities to make an impact that will affect their future and the futures of others they care about. And, you know, as I've learned in life, for better and for worse, not acting—you know, if you will, omissions—are just as important as acting in commission. And so I want students to understand that it's consequential not to get involved. And it's probably consequential and bad in ways that are most – more likely than not, not to be good for them. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. So I'm just going to—people are already writing questions in the Q&A box. Love to see that. So if you do that, please also include your affiliation or I will try to pull out your affiliation. You can always also raise your hand on the screen to ask a question. And on an iPad and tablet, you can click the “more” button. For those of you who have written your question, if you want to ask it yourself please do raise your hand because we love to hear your voices. The first person, Miriam Kerzner, wants to know what you mean by “civics.” And I think that's a good jumping off point for you to talk about civics and why it needs to be—how you think about it. HAASS: No, it's a great—yeah, in a funny sort of way, everyone—well, not everyone—but almost everyone is in favor of civics until you drill down a little bit. (Laughs.) And then they go, oh, I didn't mean that. So it's not enough to be in favor of it in principle, but you've also got to be in favor of it in practice. So it seems to me, and it's complicated, I get it. It ain't going to be easy. I get it. But I think there's certain things about our history, about certain documents people should be exposed to, certain, you know, dates and events that people should be exposed to, certain understandings about how government works at the national, the state, and then the local level people should be exposed to. Certain behaviors and attitudes that are consistent with a democracy that people should be exposed to. I think civics has got to do all of that. And I also think modern civics has to also take into account or include what is increasingly known as information literacy, to teach students to be critical consumers of this flood of information that's coming at them. And it's ironic. It's almost strange that in an age in which we're deluged with information, it's also harder than ever to be informed. But there you have it. So I think modern civics has to teach elements of history, teach some of the elements or basics of the American political system. Probably teach some basic elements of American society, the economy, and so forth, foreign policy. Talk about attitudes, behaviors, almost the culture of democracy, get into things about rights and obligations, talk about information literacy. And it's demanding. It's going to be very hard to—it's going to be impossible to satisfy not just everybody, probably anybody. This has now become a politicized terrain, probably a minefield's a better metaphor. Again, I'm not naïve about that. But I don't think we can throw up our hands and say it's too hard. It's probably impossible to get anything done at the national level just now, but not at the state level. I've already talked to several governors who are willing to take a try. I see certain schools are willing to take a try. I mean, Stanford's going to introduce a civics module for all of its freshmen starting next winter term. Other schools have some things like it. The service academies have been doing work in this area for quite a while. I don't mean to leave anybody out, but I know that schools like Purdue and Virginia, some others, have elements of this. Johns Hopkins is debating it. And so I just think it's also that universities have far more flexibility because, you know, I think it's tougher for public high schools, given the roles of state legislatures and politics. It's probably somewhat tough also, obviously, for public universities, given the way they're funded and the oversight. I think private colleges and universities have enormous discretion. There's nothing stopping them. They could do it tomorrow. There are resource issues. I get it. And not everybody has the, shall we say, resource advantages of a Stanford. So I think, you know, for a lot of schools, they're going to have to look at what's not just desirable, but you've always got to ask what's doable, what's feasible. I get it. But I think every—I think this is a conversation faculties, administrators, boards, students, and others need to have. Which is, one, whether civics? I would say the answer to that is yes. And then, OK, then let's have a follow-on conversation. What should go into it? And we can talk more about it, but I think particularly when it comes to history, which is probably the most controversial area, my own advice is to simply say there's got to be certain things about history which are not terribly controversial. There are certain documents that are essential, certain Supreme Court decisions, certain speeches, certain commentaries. Certain things happen. There's the factual spine of American history. Then there's interpretations of what caused certain things, what are the consequences of certain things. OK. Well, there, I think the lesson is not to teach a single history, not to impose a vision of history, but to expose students to a range of responsible historical analyses and interpretations. And then maybe in the classroom provide mechanisms for debating them in a civics course. And, indeed, I could imagine lots of other ideas—and there's teaching notes we just produced. One could imagine all sorts of model or mock legislatures where people—students would introduce certain legislation. One of the ideas I proposed was a model constitutional convention, and students would have a chance to propose amendments to the current Constitution and debate it out. So I think things like that. I think there's all sorts of participatory things that one could introduce or incorporate into a civics curriculum without imposing a single vision or interpretation of history, which would obviously be unacceptable to, you know, significant constituencies. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. And Miriam's at Columbia Basin College in Pasco, Washington. So I'm going to go next to Larry Mead, who has raised his hand. And if you could identify yourself and accept the unmute prompt, that would be fantastic. HAASS: Or not. FASKIANOS: Larry, you still need to unmute, or not. All right, I will go next to Laura Tedesco, and we'll come back to Larry. Or, we'll try. Laura. There you go, Laura first, OK. Laura, you just muted yourself again. Q: OK, now? FASKIANOS: You've got it. Q: OK. Thank you very much. My name is Laura Tedesco. I'm working from Madrid, Spain, working at St. Louis University, in the campus that they have here in Madrid. And my question is basically how we are going to—I agree with you about, you know, the education of citizenship here. But how are we going to really make people understand—not only students in universities, but everybody else, you know—about the right and the need to act as citizens? For instance, in a country like the United States, where your vote is not obligatory, yeah? You know, how can we make people understand that, you know, democracy should not be taken for granted, and we should all work to improve democracy from the different positions we are? Thank you. HAASS: No, it's a great question. How do we incentivize people not to take democracy for granted? One is to teach them in a civics curriculum a little bit about what are the structural strengths and advantages for democracy in terms of everything from the freedoms and rights they tend to provide and protect, to democracy's ability to adapt and innovate. We also got a pretty good historical record. I mean, yes, this democracy and other democracies have made serious mistakes, and they're imperfect to say the least, but there's a lot that they have accomplished and a lot that they have provided and delivered. So I think we need to remind people about the record of democracies to—and to also—I'd be more than comfortable pointing out some of the shortcomings of the alternatives, because obviously the alternatives do have, shall we say, more than their share of flaws. And I—again, to encourage, you know, informed participation—I think you have to make the case that democracies are responsive, that individuals and groups can make a difference. There's almost nothing that's inevitable. And history is, in many ways, what we make it. And that's what I want students to come away with, the sense of possibility and empowerment. I mean, what I came to conclude in writing this is if we wait for democracies to be delivered, if you will, or saved by someone at the top, it's going to be a long wait. And what we really need to think about is empowerment, whether it's young people or, again, these critical constituencies in American society from business to religious leaders, to teachers, to journalists, officials, and so forth. You know, we all have a chance to make a difference. And I want students to get excited about both why democracies are worth saving and the difference that individuals can make. And I think if we do that, we can generate some greater political involvement. And what the last two elections show is even minute amounts—you know, 1 percent here or there—of greater political involvement can have enormous impact. And that's what I want, again, students to come away with. The, yeah, well my vote won't matter. Well, probably not, if you're talking about one vote. But it doesn't take a whole lot of people getting involved in order to tip the scales. And so I want students to get a sense of empowerment. FASKIANOS: So you can build on—that starts to answer Robert McCoy's question, who is at the University of Montana, in the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center in Missoula, Montana. He says: Read the book. Think it ought to be mandatory reading for all, not just students. However, your opening chapters paint such a dire picture that I fail to see how today's issues can be rectified. Can you speak to that? HAASS: Hmm. I'll have to go back and reread the opening chapters. I thought the first chapter was kind of about the— is really neutral. It's kind of the march of American history—American political history. It's kind of how we got to where we are. You know, the second chapter is on backsliding. And the reason it's that way is if things weren't in a bad way, I wouldn't have needed to write the book and I could have focused on my golf game and lowering my handicap. But because democratic backsliding in this country—and, by the way, in others—is a reality, I felt compelled to write this book. So I didn't have confidence that it would just sort itself out by itself. I actually think very few things just sort themselves out by themselves, whether we're talking about domestic political systems or international systems. I think it takes agency. And but again, small numbers could have really large impact. I mean, we just had a midterm here where roughly, I don't know, 45 percent of the eligible voters voted. And which was, you know, slightly higher than traditional midterms. Still disappointing. But some of the outcomes were pretty impressive. And in terms of stabilizing American democracy. Very easily, though, there could have been other outcomes. And think of the consequences there. So the whole argument for making—you know, for obligations is that nothing's baked into the cake, for better and for worse. So we shouldn't assume that everything's just going to turn out just fine. And we shouldn't assume that it won't. And I think, again, small numbers could have real impact. And, again, it's an empowerment argument. And I think there's a lot—there's a lot of distributed authority—obligation, or authority, or potential for various groups within the society, various constituencies, as well as with individuals writ large. And I think possibly reminding people about how government over the years has adapted, I think people need to, in some ways, rediscover a bit of respect and admiration for government. And I look at some of the changes we've had over the course of, say, the last—take my last seventy-five years, or even, you know, from on domestic things. Civil rights, you know, extension of the vote to eighteen-year-olds, what we've recently done on gay marriage, and so forth. The degree of adaptability and change, government turns out to be quite flexible in this society. So I want students to get jazzed about the potential here, about the possibility, but to remind them it just doesn't happen by itself. And people have to get involved. And politics is not dirty. It's a calling. And so I want the best and brightest to do this. You know, I've had a career that's been in and out of government, and I wouldn't trade it for just about anything. And it's really satisfying. I talk to them about careers and other things also. So I mean, not just people that are going to become doctors, and lawyers, and plumbers, and electricians, and whatever. And I want them to be involved, informed citizens. But I would love a chunk of the best and brightest to go into government and choose that as a calling. So again, one of the reasons I love the idea of a public service experience, say, for a year or two years after high school, before college, or during college, or after college, not only do would I think a lot of people come into contact with one another who ordinarily wouldn't meet where people grow up, but I think they would see what government could do. They would see that public service can actually accomplish some things that are good for the public. So I think students need to realize that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next back to Larry Mead. And let's see if we can get your technology—there we go. Q: Can you hear me now? OK. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Yes, we can. And identify yourself, please. Q: What I wrote was, I thought I was the only political scientist to write about obligation. I wrote a book about that back in the 1960s. It was about domestic policy, mainly. I think your book is—I think the second book to really focus on obligation. And my question is this: In fact, our system presumes a very high level of civic obligation. We are, in fact, one of the most civic countries in the world, one of the best governed in the world. And that all depends on that civic culture. So why then do we talk only about rights? HAASS: Great question. First of all, what's your book? My research was inadequate. Tell me about your book. Q: (Laughs.) OK. It was called Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. It's about welfare, poverty, and reform of welfare. It makes a case for work requirements. And later on, I became the theorist of welfare reform. But the general argument is that freedom depends on obligation. And actually, freedom is a form of obligation. But people aren't thoughtful about that. They somehow think that freedom is simply liberation from all sets of outside expectations. No. Our heaviest obligations are the obligations we set for ourselves in our own lives. We work very hard to achieve those things. So freedom isn't free, and yet we don't talk about it. HAASS: I agree. And good for you. Thank you. I will now make up for my impoverished scholarship and researching skills. Q: Well, I'm going to read your book, and I will write you a reaction, I promise you. HAASS: Thank you. Be kind. Look, there's a lot of—in the course of writing this, I read some religious and political philosophers. And that was their argument, that freedom without obligation is dangerous. It actually leads you to anarchy. And but obligation and the rest without freedom denies you basic rights. And you've got to—you got to get both. Find it infused in religious and philosophical literature. I found it in some educational literature after World War II. So I've asked myself, to your question, how did we kind of lose the balance? Because if you go to early American history, there was such an emphasis on rights, and my hunch is people were much more conscious of rights because the entire context was not reimposing tyranny after getting out from under the yoke of Britain. I also think our culture was different. That a lot of obligations, or the notion of obligations, was assumed. It was implicit. It wasn't missing. It was there. And when you go back—when I went back and read de Tocqueville, and Bryce, and others, you re-read a lot of this—even the Federalist Papers, they didn't spend a lot of time hammering away on obligations. I think they saw it all around them. I think what's happened, and it's probably beyond my paygrade, or at least beyond my intellectual understanding—because I'm not an anthropologist or a sociologist—was somehow this notion of the balance between rights and obligations in American society, to use a technical phrase, has gotten out of whack. We've become much more rights focused, almost rights obsessed. What are we owed? Whether they're political rights or economic rights. And we've lost a sense of what do we owe in turn. And, you know, how that happened is an interesting conversation. And it's something I've been meditating about and thinking about. But however it happened, it happened. And that's why I think we need something of a corrective. And I'm no longer confident it'll just happen. The ship won't right itself. And I think that we have to now be conscious about advocating for obligations, because they have the coin of citizenship has lost its balance there. And it's gone way too much in one direction. So what I'm trying to do is by talking so much about obligations, decades after you did—is in some ways resurrect the idea and strengthen a recognition that we've somewhat lost our way. And, by the way, I think people know that. I got to tell you, I've been on the road a lot the last six weeks, talking about this book to all sorts of citizen groups. I did one last night about fifty miles from here. And people know it. I got to tell you, particularly people who are middle-aged and older, they look out their window, they get up and they look out at this society, and they go: This isn't the American I remember. There is something amiss. There is something wrong. I'm not saying the old America was perfect. It was obviously flawed in some significant ways. But there is something wrong about our culture. I think if de Tocqueville were to come back, he would not be happy, in some ways. He would see things that were missing a little bit from the relationship between individuals and society, and particularly the obligation I have, say, about the common good. I think there's a degree now of selfishness and individualism. And I think it's gotten out of hand in American society. We saw a lot of that during the pandemic. And that, to me, was yet another message that we've got some work here to do. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Louis Caldera, who is a professor of law at American University. Can you talk about our democracy as an example to the world that is foundational to achieving our foreign policy and national security goals? Do you agree? Do we undermine our leadership in the world if our own democracy is undermined by things like gerrymandering, vote suppressing laws, unchecked special interest money, and so on? HAASS: In a word, yes, we do. We certainly undermine the appeal of democracy. It's very hard to talk the talk if you don't walk the walk. And January 6 was probably the low point. But again, when people look at American democracy or look not just at democracy but American society, I think our ability—and, how do I put this—we're not quite the shining city on the hill we should be or could be. So, we can have—we can arm every diplomat with talking points about preaching democratic reform, but it's not going to have any traction if it's done against the backdrop of what we now have in this country. So I think that's just a fact of life. So you're spot on. And I also think the divisions in our society and the lurches, increasingly, in our politics have made us much less influential in the world, because we're no longer seen as predictable or reliable. And allies, by definition, what have they done? They have essentially made a security choice to put a big chunk of their security in our hands. If our hands are no longer seen as reliable, predictable, or safe, they're either going to put security in their own hands—and that's a world of much more proliferation or something like that—or they're going to defer to some powerful neighbors. That is not a pretty world. I also worry that our—my own guess, I can't prove it—but Vladimir Putin was somewhat encouraged to do what did in Ukraine because he didn't think the United States had the will to come together to resist. And so I take these things seriously. So, yeah. So I think, again, this is directly—what's going on here, you know, to use the old line about Las Vegas, it doesn't stay here. This isn't Las Vegas. And it's—if anybody's on this from Nevada, I apologize. But it does have real foreign policy consequences. So I think you're spot on. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Collette Mazzucelli, who has raised her hand. Q: Hello. Good afternoon, Dr. Haass. And I just wanted to ask you if you think that there's a need for a new model of citizenship because of the evolution of the internet, the next phase that's coming, the prevalence and, you know, omnipresent nature of misinformation, disinformation in our society, and also across the world. Thank you. HAASS: It's a really thoughtful question. It was about, what, two weeks ago the Supreme Court had two days of oral hearings—or arguments on Section 230 of the 1996 law, the Communications Decency Act. I think we're struggling with the internet, because these companies, or the pipes that they operate, are carrying millions and millions of messages from millions and millions of people. So the question is, can we—and if so, how, and the rest—can we in any way regulate the content? So I think there's real issues. And social media is, in many cases, inflaming divisions within a society. It is encouraging some bad behaviors in many cases. But it's not quite clear to me what the remedies are, what's practical, and what's desirable. Some things are simply impractical given the number of users, the volume of messaging. And some things may not be desirable because where do you draw the line on First Amendment rights, free speech, and so forth. And who does the drawing? Who's in charge of line drawing? And do we want to necessarily delegate the ability to draw certain lines to some individuals who may be working for Twitter, or Facebook, or Instagram, or what have you? So I think these are really tough issues. My guess is the Supreme Court will probably punt to Congress. Congress will not pick up the ball, would be my guess. There might be some movement. If you look at one of the cases heard before the court now, I think they'll issue their decision in, say, June or so. Where it's one thing for the companies to say they're neutral, they can't be expected to regulate content. OK. I think it's different, though, when they highlight, or accelerate, or intensify certain content through algorithms or what have you. So I think there might be some pushback there, that they can't necessarily police or regulate all the content. But they can be held accountable for not—or, regulator-required, not to highlight certain content. I think it might get at their business model, but I can live with that, to say the least. And then the other half of the coin is how do we make ourselves more critical consumers? And that gets at the whole information literacy movement that we're seeing in New Jersey at the high school level, and other places. But I would think, again, on university campuses, the idea—if I had my way, there would be a mandatory civics course. And, again, one dimension of it would be information literacy. So even if we'll never succeed in totally regulating what goes on social media, in whatever form. But I do think we can improve our ability to be critical consumers of it. And I think that is out there. But, look, when I look at democratic backsliding around the world, not just in the United States. We're seeing it in Mexico, we're seeing it in India, we're seeing it in Israel. We're seeing it in lots of places. The proliferation of media, social media, you know, my word for it is narrowcasting. We now live in an era of narrowcasting. And people are no longer exposed to common things, and they increasingly go into various social and regular media outlets, which tend to either confirm certain views or prejudices, what have you. I think it's a real challenge for democracy. FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Victoria Powers, who's at Capital University in Ohio. I agree with you that teaching civics is critical, and I understand that it's complex in the current environment for some high schools to teach civics. Although I hate to give up requiring civics in K-12 schools. Do you have ideas about what we could do to help provide an education in civics for all those young people who will not be headed to two- or four-year college or universities or community colleges, obviously. And, sorry, she is an adjunct at the Capital University Law School in Ohio. HAASS: Well, I think the takeaway I take from that question, and it's a good one, is what we do on two- and four-year college and university campuses is part of the answer, it's not the totality of it. And we've got to get to citizens younger. So that gets at what you do at high school, junior high school, even middle school. I mean, iCivics has been active in middle schools for a long time. And it also raises questions of what we do away from school. And that's where, again, I think that those who give the sermons have a certain responsibility, media has a larger responsibility than it is often willing to carry out. Businesses, corporations have a responsibility. I think there's got to be distributed obligations here. And I believe each one of these segments of society has obligations and should be pressured by citizens to carry it out. But I do think, yes, we ought to be pushing civics down younger, but we also—we need—as important as classrooms are, we've also got to do things beyond—outside the classroom. But the basic point is right, particularly since the only thing most Americans have to do is attend school through the age of sixteen. So we can't afford to miss that opportunity. Irina, you're on mute. FASKIANOS: Right. How long have I been doing this? OK. (Laughs.) HAASS: For about half an hour, but we've been waiting for you. (Laughter.) FASKIANOS: I'm going to go next to Jody McBrien, who is a professor of social sciences at the University of South Florida. I understand why young people feel powerless, especially when you consider gerrymandering voting and using misinformation. You mentioned state level, she lives in Florida, enough said. How do you suggest getting students engaged in spite of these issues that understandably cause a feeling of helplessness. HAASS: Well, again, you know, the people who are in power passing certain laws now, or redrawing lines, they weren't always in those positions. They got there. So my view is if one disagrees with them, then one has to get them out of there and put other people in there. And that's what political involvement is all about. There's nothing inevitable. There's nothing permanent. These things go in cycles and so forth. So I would tell students, yeah, channel your frustration. Channel your anger. But channel it in ways that will change the political realities. Don't just protest. Don't just get—certainly don't give up. I mean, I think the worst thing is to walk away from it and saying it's hopeless. That becomes self-fulfilling, because then, again, you leave your political future in the hands of others who are unlikely to have your best interests at heart. So I think the best thing is to sit down with students and talk about how politics have changed American time, and time, and time again. And they ought to essentially think about collective action. And that's the history of American political life. FASKIANOS: I will take the next written question from Ali Abootalebi, who is a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. Would you comment on implications of your civic education argument for U.S. foreign policy? The American public is fundamentally divorced from U.S. foreign relations, leaving the foreign policy establishment free from certain obligations and in pursuit of narrowed interests. HAASS: Well, the latter we can have a debate about, to what extent does American foreign policy always served American interests. And I would say, at times it has and at times it hasn't. I'm often a critic of what we do in the name of the national interest, which at times to me seems to be anything but. But that's almost a case-by-case type thing. But, look, I would say that one part of being an informed citizen is understanding the world and understanding foreign policy. It's one of the reasons about a decade ago here, at the Council on Foreign Relations, we made it a real priority to promote literacy in matters of the world and matters of foreign policy. And we've got an entire curriculum. We've got simulation resources. We've got resources aimed at younger students. We do now all sorts of public fora on our website, CFR.org. The most trafficked items tend to be the explainers of these complicated issues to give people a basic understanding of these issues. I think it's part of being an informed citizen. So my own view is we want to have what we call global literacy, in addition to having what I would call civics literacy. I think they are both—since we live in a global world, where everything we do or don't do affects the world and vice versa, everything that goes on the world affects us, for better and for worse, we want citizens to be aware of that loop, and to think about the consequences of certain policies or actions for that. So I think that as an extension of informed civic involvement. It's just the content, in some cases, has to involve things international, and not just things domestic. FASKIANOS: All right. I'm going to take the next question from David Cheney. And I'm trying to pull up affiliation. While I am: How can young people stay accurately informed, given their reliance on social media? And how would you have them balance right-wing with left-wing media sources to arrive at a closer approximation of the truth? And he is at NYU. HAASS: I've heard of NYU. Look, a couple things. Yeah, I know what is not in my answer. TikTok is not the answer. Let me say that. A couple of things. One is, and in the book I have a whole section on where to go for more. And I also think—you know, because there are certain quality publications. Certain newspapers just tend to be good, or better than others. They're not perfect, but they're better. Certain magazines, certain television and radio shows, certain websites. So there are quality places to steer people to. I think as a rule of thumb we ought to encourage multi-sourcing, not to put all your—not to depend on a single source. It's almost like a journalist. A journalist would never write a story based on a single source. They have to double-source it. And I almost feel as citizens we ought to double-source our information, and not just depend on one. I used to have a rule when I went to the gym in my pre-COVID life, when I went on the elliptical, I would divide my time among Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. And I'll admit, I did cheat and ESPN would get a chunk of it as well. But the whole idea was the be exposed. It was just—it was interesting just to see the different “realities,” quote/unquote, that were put forward. But I think it's important to—if you read a national newspaper, then read a local newspaper, maybe. Or if you do something of the left, do something of the right. Or if you read this book, as a professor or teacher, you'd encourage someone to read something else to—so you're not, again, single sourcing. And I think that's the—if I had a single rule of thumb, it would probably be that, to protect yourself from the structural biases. Because all authors or publications have a bias either in what they cover or how they cover it. I take that for granted. So the only way—the best way to protect yourself from it is a degree of multiple exposure. FASKIANOS: OK. I think we have time for one more. Dana Radcliffe at Syracuse University. President Obama in his farewell address referred to the citizen as “the most important office in a democracy.” The philosopher Joseph Tussman in 1960 offered an insightful characterization of “the office of the citizen.” Might the suggestion that citizen is a public office help advance the thesis that citizenship entails obligations as well as rights? HAASS: An interesting construct. I like it. It kind of adds a bit of heft, because we tend to sort of just talk about citizenship, almost dismiss it at times. Well, he's just an ordinary person. But I like the idea of an office, that it's—that you're—because that suggests a degree of empowerment and a degree, again, of obligation. So I like the idea. I think it kind of—kind of it gets people to take the potential to make a difference a little bit more seriously. And I really like it. So that's a useful construct. So thank you for that. FASKIANOS: OK. We have a few more minutes. Richard, is there anything you want to leave the group with that we haven't covered? HAASS: I know I'm always supposed to say yes at this point, but no. It's been a really wide-ranging conversation. No, and I think what I'm hoping is that people on a call such as this will think about how to promote—you know, particularly on campuses and schools—the teaching of civics. Both to create a mandate for it, and then we can debate the content. But the idea that—you know, one of the arguments often used that I encounter—I'm not in a position to judge its accuracy—is that too many of the constituencies on campus oppose this, particularly it's often said to me, you know, faculty, or whatever. And I think the faculty could make an important difference by basically saying: Actually, no. We don't oppose this. We think this is a swell idea. And we're prepared to work with administrators, students, and the rest, to make it happen. And I think that would be fantastic. So, again, you're the multipliers. And I think you're in a special position to do this. So, again, I think freshman year experience is a good place to get the kids going, the students going with this. But I do think, whether it's a course or a module at some point, it needs—but we need advocates for it. So I hope some of you on this call will be advocates, because I just think we're missing not just an opportunity but, if you'll pardon the expression, we're missing an obligation to see that—to make sure that our students are prepared to do their bit, to do their share, for upholding democracy in this country. And so I just think universities and colleges have, again, a special opportunity and obligation both. And you're all so instrumental to do that. So Godspeed in that effort. FASKIANOS: Well, with that, thank you very much, Richard. Thank you for writing, authoring, this book, The Bill of Obligations. Richard has also written teaching notes to go with the book that we will be posting on the website alter this week. If you're interested in an exam copy, either digital or print, we can—we can honor that request. And if you want to try to make—put his book on the common reading list or incorporate it into your first-year experience, we can also think about having Richard address the incoming class virtually or perhaps in person. We appreciate all that you have done, Richard. He has really transformed CFR into an educational institution. You should check out Model Diplomacy and World 101. You can follow Richard on Twitter at @richardhaass, subscribe to his Substack newsletter which he just launched, called Home and Away, by going to richardhaass.substack.com. We'll include those links in our follow-up note with the link to this video and transcript. We will include the teaching notes as well. And I also encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thank you all for being with us today, for the work that you do on your college campuses. And, Richard Haass, again, thank you for being with us. HAASS: Thank you, Irina. Thank you, all. I appreciate it. (END)

Ohio currently ranks 31st in the country with regard to education of our young people and one has to wonder, "why? What can we be doing differently to improve the academic outcomes of our students?" Join us as SST8 consultants interview Bernadette Laughlin, Education Program Specialist with the Office for Exceptional Children, to discuss state, district, and classroom level practices that can influence all students systemically, not just those with neurodiverse needs. Co-Hosts: Tracy Mail and Rachel Undercoffer, SST8 Consultants About Our Guest: Bernadette Laughlin is a Related Services Program Specialist at the Ohio Department of Education where she oversees all areas of related services in special education and provides professional development and training throughout the state to educators. Bernadette has a wide range of previous professional experience as a due process coordinator, education consultant, pupil services department facilitator, speech language pathologist, and as a lawyer. She completed her Bachelor of Science degree in Education-Speech Pathology and Masters of Arts in Education Policy & Leadership from The Ohio State University. She then attended Capital University Law School where she graduated Magna Cum Laude. Bernadette has been working for the Ohio Department of Education since 2010, with 26 years of previous experience at Westerville City Schools. Additional Resources: Each Child Means Each Child

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called states the “laboratories of democracy.” But thanks to gerrymandering and fiercely partisan politics, many Ohioans fear this laboratory is in jeopardy, and the November 2022 elections were run in Ohio with unconstitutional district maps. This CMC forum looks at the results of this year's election and what they might mean for the future of our democracy. The panelists are:  Karen Kasler, Bureau Chief, Statehouse News Bureau  Bradley Smith, Professor, Capital University Law School, and Former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission Dr. Wendy Smooth, Professor, Department of Women's Gender & Sexuality Studies and the Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University The host is Mike Thompson, Chief Content Director of News and Public Affairs, with “Democracy in Crisis” series partner WOSU Public Media.   The forum sponsor is Hannah News Service. The forum partner is the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Columbus.  This forum was recorded live at The Boat House in Columbus, Ohio on Wednesday, November 9, 2022.  

When someone refers to the First Amendment, they are often referring to freedom of speech.  Are you aware that there are actually 6 enumerated freedoms protected in the First Amendment?  Along with speech, the First Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Peaceably Assemble, Freedom to Petition the Government  for Redress of Grievances, Freedom to Practice Religion and the notion of no state-mandated religion.  We are going to discuss the last two in depth next week and will focus on the first four this week.  Freedom of Speech and the Press are pretty well-known but it's important to point out that free press does not solely apply to journalists and publishers.  It's what gives each of us the freedom to publish a blog or make a YouTube video.  So what do the other two freedoms mean?  Join our student panel (featuring new panelist Yashica  Nabar)  and guest speaker Professor Bradley Smith of Capital University Law School in Ohio for this enlightening discussion into our basic freedoms.

Judge Mary Kay Ryan Fenlon, newly elected to the https://municipalcourt.franklincountyohio.gov/Judiciary/Judges/Judges-List/Mary-Kay-Fenlon (Franklin County Municipal Court), is here to discuss her career journey, as well as the value and impact we can all make by our willingness to devote our time and talent to our community. Judge Fenlon was born and raised in Columbus OH, and has been a practicing attorney for over 30 years. Her legal career has spanned many different opportunities including private practice, government, and corporate law. Judge Fenlon has also been a mentor to young lawyers and has given back to her community through volunteer work for the Columbus Legal Aid Society's TAP program and the Franklin County Court's Juvenile Justice Restoration program. Judge Fenlon also founded a nonprofit called, “https://causes.benevity.org/causes/840-471321383?lang=en (Rock and Roll Over Brain Cancer),” which raises funding for The Ohio State University's James Cancer Hospital to support their research on this dreaded disease. Judge Fenlon graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor's in Criminology and her J.D. is from Capital University Law School. During the episode, we: Explore Encore Careers:  You'll hear about information and experiences on a career journey for those moving into new directions or new industries.    Review of and emphasize the importance of encore careers. Are there programs and services available to Central Ohio citizens regarding encore careers? Offer a path for those 50+ in Central Ohio. Emphasizing the value of staying in a career even later in life. And how valuable it is to the value you personally, your family, and your community. https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ4YKzVZNHNCBjaBjCFGXD4VhUIlBB6rYpr7 (Resources we talk about) in this episode We would love to hear from you. https://podinbox.com/LFOW (Give us your feedback, or suggest a topic, by leaving us a voice message.) Email us at hello@lookingforwardourway.com. Find us on https://www.facebook.com/lookingforwardourway/ (Facebook). https://g.page/looking-forward-our-way/review?gm (Please review our podcast on Google!) And of course, everything can be found on our website, https://my.captivate.fm/www.lookingforwardourway.com (Looking Forward Our Way.) Recorded in Studio C at https://my.captivate.fm/www.channel511.com (511 Studios). A production of https://my.captivate.fm/www.circle270media.com (Circle270Media Podcast Consultants). Copyright 2022 Carol Ventresca and Brett Johnson

On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Federal Election Commission vs. Ted Cruz for Senate. Listeners may remember our guest today, Professor Bradley A. Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, who joined earlier in the term for the post-argument segment. Today, Professor Smith, a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (2004), joins to provide expert analysis on this decision.Holding: Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — which limits the amount of post-election contributions that may be used to repay a candidate who lends money to his own campaign — unconstitutionally burdens core political speech.Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 16, 2022. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

On January 19th, the Court heard arguments in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate. At issue were: (1) Whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit of 52 U.S.C. 30116(j); and (2) whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Bradley Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 dictates the congressional procedure for certifying electoral college results in a presidential election The Act was passed in response to the presidential election of 1876—where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in 3 states—in an effort to avoid future contested elections But a large bipartisan group of  election law scholars and politicians across the political spectrum have argued that the law creates more confusion and needs to be reformed. Today on We the People, we're doing a deep dive into the Electoral Count Act and proposals for fixing it—which have gained traction after the events of January 6, 2020, when members of Congress challenged the electoral slates of several states and some, along with President Trump, asked Vice President Pence not to certify these votes, which would have switched the presidential election results from Joe Biden to Trump.   Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two election law experts who co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act. Ned Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University, and he also directs its election law program. Brad Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. And from 2000-2005, he served on the Federal Election Commission.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 dictates the congressional procedure for certifying electoral college results in a presidential election The Act was passed in response to the presidential election of 1876—where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in 3 states—in an effort to avoid future contested elections But a large bipartisan group of  election law scholars and politicians across the political spectrum have argued that the law creates more confusion and needs to be reformed. Today on We the People, we're doing a deep dive into the Electoral Count Act and proposals for fixing it—which have gained traction after the events of January 6, 2020, when members of Congress challenged the electoral slates of several states and some, along with President Trump, asked Vice President Pence not to certify these votes, which would have switched the presidential election results from Joe Biden to Trump.   Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two election law experts who co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act. Ned Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University, and he also directs its election law program. Brad Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. And from 2000-2005, he served on the Federal Election Commission.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Website --> https://alharrisonlaw.com/ Allison has been serving small businesses and auto dealerships for over nine years. As counsel for auto dealerships, she has the distinct advantage of growing up in the industry with a Chevrolet Dealer for a father, which provides her the practical knowledge other attorneys do not have. In her career, Allison has defended businesses from consumer, State of Ohio, and State of Michigan actions. Allison also serves as general counsel for many of her Clients. Allison's practices focuses on litigation, appearance in front of state agencies, and compliance. Allison is licensed in Ohio and Michigan, as well as the federal Courts in Ohio and Michigan. Allison is a proud graduate of the University of Michigan and Capital University Law School.

This week we welcome back friend of the show and experienced attorney in the fields of serious personal injury and civil rights litigation, Sean Walton. Sean consistently represents several families in Columbus who have had loved ones murdered at the hands of the Columbus Police Department -- including Casey Goodson Jr., Henry Green V and too many more. As an Adjunct Professor at Capital University Law School, Sean lectures frequently on issues ranging from knowing your rights and how to properly document instances of excessive police force to trends and best practices in personal injury and civil rights litigation. On this week's episode we discuss how the mechanisms of white supremacy, corruption in the Columbus Police Department, unchecked power of the Fraternal Order of Police, establishment politics invested in the status quo, negligent local journalism, and a criminal justice system designed to uphold white supremacy work together to make Columbus one of the most dangerous cities for Black people to live in the U.S. Uniquely qualified to shine a light on exactly how the underbelly of Columbus operates, we are so lucky to have Sean back on the show share his wealth of knowledge with us. LINKS: Franklin County has one of highest rates of fatal police shootings in Ohio and the U.S. --- The Columbus Dispatch Feb 23, 2021. IG @swaltonesq Twitter @swaltonesq Facebook @SeanWaltonJr and @WaltonBrownLaw Website Walton + Brown LLP --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/columbus-cant-wait/message

Anthony Iannarino is the highly respected international speaker, bestselling author, entrepreneur, and sales leader behind The Sales Blog, an all-around sales platform that specializes in the planning and execution of complex B2B sales strategy. He is the founder and managing partner of two closely-held, family-owned businesses in the staffing industry, leading both entities in strategic planning while growing sales. Apart from being a top thought leader in sales strategy, he is also the designer of Level 4 Value Creation™ and Building Consensus, methodologies that help sales organizations achieve transformational, breakthrough results.Focusing on helping professionals of each business reach their full potential, Anthony discovered his talent for coaching in 2007 while he was growing the sales force of his second staffing firm and came into a realization that he could contribute greatly into the development of a company’s sales culture. From blogging about complex selling processes, he gravitated towards B2B companies facing challenges in sales force management and performance. As a result of his professional speaking, consulting, and workshop facilitation, he developed the trademarked methodology that has been proven instrumental in helping sales organizations achieve revenue goals. Anthony graduated Summa Cum Laude from Capital University, earning his BA in Political Science and English Literature. He also attended Capital University Law School and acquired Harvard’s version of an executive MBA from Harvard Business School, OPM. Anthony has published three books - The Only Sales Guide You'll Ever Need, The Lost Art of Closing: Winning the Ten Commitments That Drive Sales, and Eat Their Lunch: Winning Customers Away from Your Competition - available in all major bookstores. Grab a copy of his free eBook - How to Sell Without a Sales Manager by clicking this LINK.Find out more and reach out to Anthony Iannarino through the following links:Websites:https://thesalesblog.com/http://www.solutionsstaffing.com/LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/iannarinoJoin the Sales Hustle Community! Text “Hustle” to 424-401-9300!If you’re listening to the Sales Hustle podcast, please subscribe, share, and we’re listening for your feedback. If you are a sales professional looking to take your sales career to the next level, please visit us at https://salescast.co/ and set a time with Collin and co-founder Chris.Please make sure to rate and review the show on Apple.

Marcelius Braxton talks to Scot Kirk — host of "The Other Side" podcast — and to Dr. Terrance Dean about Braxton's recent Columbus Dispatch op-ed column about Blacks being percieved as dangerous without cause.  Braxton, assistant dean of students at Capital University Law School, says the erroneous perception that Black people are dangerous is the source of many of the racial and equality issues facing the country today.  He also talks about how Blacks are regularly dehumanized in ways that whites rarely are and Braxton offers suggestions on how to combat the problem. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Marcelius Braxton talks to Scot Kirk — host of "The Other Side" podcast — and to Dr. Terrance Dean about Braxton's recent Columbus Dispatch op-ed column about Blacks being percieved as dangerous without cause.  Braxton, assistant dean of students at Capital University Law School, says the erroneous perception that Black people are dangerous is the source of many of the racial and equality issues facing the country today.  He also talks about how Blacks are regularly dehumanized in ways that whites rarely are and Braxton offers suggestions on how to combat the problem. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Emily Conrad has written a comprehensive account of the US Electoral College in her new book, The Faithless? The Untold Story of the Electoral College. As another presidential election rapidly approaches this November, the fate may well rest in the hands of the Electoral College. Conrad conducted extensive interviews, profiling a diverse roster of faithless electors in the 2016 Electoral College. Conrad compiled their personal background and to understand their reasons for their rouge votes. "As I researched this book and talked with one faithless elector after another, I found myself constantly challenged in my ideas and understanding of the Electoral College, the role of political parties within America's democratic system, and the empowerment of the individual versus the masses in American politics" says Conrad. "However," Conrad continues, "one thing I do not question is the authenticity of the electors who decided to go against the popular vote of their states and vote faithlessly. Each one of the electors with whom I have spoken gave immense thought and emotional energy into his or her decision." Will the die-hard Bernie electors stay true to their convictions, or grudgingly support the official nominee? Will the lifelong Republican electors cast their vote for Donald Trump, or write in another candidate in the name of principle? Conrad expands upon these stories and details the reactions and aftermath after each elector casts their deciding vote, prompting the question: what do the faithless electors of 2016 prescribe to the possibility of faithless electors in this contentious 2020 presidential race? "While most political junkies examined the unprecedented nature of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, Conrad was fascinated by the underreported stories about the eight so-called faithless electors who cast ballots that went against the popular vote of their states in the Electoral College. The driving questions behind the author's work lie not in constitutional debates surrounding the legality of faithless electors or the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, but in the eight electors themselves . . . her deeply human approach that centers on the personal lives of the eight electors is a welcome alternative to a genre dominated by hyperpartisan pundits. By pushing Trump and Clinton out of the spotlight, the book is also an implicit celebration of democracy with an unrelenting focus on state and local activists willing to stand up against members of their own parties." - Kirkus Reviews "Not merely about the Electoral College, but about how ordinary, politically engaged Americans are struggling to cope with the political turmoils of our time. a particularly worthwhile read." - Bradley A. Smith, Professor at Capital University Law School, Federal Election Commissioner (2000-2005) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-aidan-byrne0/support

As the 2020 election quickly approaches, the Supreme Court issued two key rulings on state election laws this week—ruling 5-3 in Merill v. People First of Alabama to prevent counties from offering curbside voting in Alabama, and, in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, upholding Pennsylvania’s extension of its mail-in ballot deadline by a 4-4 vote. This episode recaps those rulings, explores other key election-related cases before courts around the country, and explains the constitutional dimensions of legal battles over voting including why and how a court decides when state laws rise to the level of disenfranchisement or not. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine and co-host of Slate’s podcast “Political Gabfest”, and Bradley Smith, professor at Capital University Law School who previously served on the Federal Election Commission, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the 2020 election quickly approaches, the Supreme Court issued two key rulings on state election laws this week—ruling 5-3 in Merill v. People First of Alabama to prevent counties from offering curbside voting in Alabama, and, in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, upholding Pennsylvania’s extension of its mail-in ballot deadline by a 4-4 vote. This episode recaps those rulings, explores other key election-related cases before courts around the country, and explains the constitutional dimensions of legal battles over voting including why and how a court decides when state laws rise to the level of disenfranchisement or not. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine and co-host of Slate’s podcast “Political Gabfest”, and Bradley Smith, professor at Capital University Law School who previously served on the Federal Election Commission, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Kelly Kay is the Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer at the Toyota Research Institute (TRI). In her current role she is responsible for overall business operations, technology delivery and continuing to build a more diverse and inclusive environment at TRI. Kelly joined TRI in February 2017 and formerly served as the Chief Operating Officer.  Prior to TRI, Kelly served as the Vice President of Business Operations at Lyft, Inc., where she built and led the teams responsible for Regulatory Compliance, Audit & Reporting, Payments & Fraud, and Airport Operations. She also served as the Chief Operating Officer and President of YapStone, Inc., a leading electronic payments company in the real estate property space.  Before serving as an operational leader, Kelly was an attorney for more than 19 years and held roles as a General Counsel, Associate General Counsel & Head of Compliance, as well as a leader in public policy and government relations at companies such as MasterCard, eBay, PayPal and J.P. Morgan (previously Banc One). Kelly has spent her career designing solutions to bring traditional, highly regulated products and services into the digital age in a compliant and operationally friendly manner. Her key areas of focus include ride-sharing, autonomous technologies regulation, online payments, online financial services, privacy, anti-money laundering, and online auctions.  Kelly is an internal Board member of Toyota AI Ventures, Toyota’s corporate venture capital group. with over $200M under management. She attended The Ohio State University and Capital University Law School where she graduated Summa Cum Laude.   In this episode of Fairygodboss Radio, Kelly Kay talks about her career journey and why you should never say no to opportunity.  [Recorded on August 31, 2020]

Emily Conrad has written a comprehensive account of the US Electoral College in her new book, The Faithless? The Untold Story of the Electoral College. As another presidential election rapidly approaches this November, the fate may well rest in the hands of the Electoral College. Conrad conducted extensive interviews, profiling a diverse roster of faithless electors in the 2016 Electoral College. Conrad compiled their personal background and to understand their reasons for their rouge votes. "As I researched this book and talked with one faithless elector after another, I found myself constantly challenged in my ideas and understanding of the Electoral College, the role of political parties within America's democratic system, and the empowerment of the individual versus the masses in American politics" says Conrad. "However," Conrad continues, "one thing I do not question is the authenticity of the electors who decided to go against the popular vote of their states and vote faithlessly. Each one of the electors with whom I have spoken gave immense thought and emotional energy into his or her decision." Will the die-hard Bernie electors stay true to their convictions, or grudgingly support the official nominee? Will the lifelong Republican electors cast their vote for Donald Trump, or write in another candidate in the name of principle? Conrad expands upon these stories and details the reactions and aftermath after each elector casts their deciding vote, prompting the question: what do the faithless electors of 2016 prescribe to the possibility of faithless electors in this contentious 2020 presidential race? "While most political junkies examined the unprecedented nature of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, Conrad was fascinated by the underreported stories about the eight so-called faithless electors who cast ballots that went against the popular vote of their states in the Electoral College. The driving questions behind the author's work lie not in constitutional debates surrounding the legality of faithless electors or the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, but in the eight electors themselves . . . her deeply human approach that centers on the personal lives of the eight electors is a welcome alternative to a genre dominated by hyperpartisan pundits. By pushing Trump and Clinton out of the spotlight, the book is also an implicit celebration of democracy with an unrelenting focus on state and local activists willing to stand up against members of their own parties." - Kirkus Reviews "Not merely about the Electoral College, but about how ordinary, politically engaged Americans are struggling to cope with the political turmoils of our time. a particularly worthwhile read." - Bradley A. Smith, Professor at Capital University Law School, Federal Election Commissioner (2000-2005) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-aidan-byrne0/support

Episode #6: Hear Ben Jerome break down what Leadership is and how to improve every day. "Getting paid what he was worth" got him into financial services but his why is so much greater today. As he stated "if it's easy, everyone would be doing it" but for those that can what a rewarding path it is.As a Regional Vice President for Appreciation Financial, Ben Jerome has the distinct privilege of leading and mentoring numerous financial professionals as they help thousands of public employees who serve their communities each and every day.Ben is an adopted orphan from Seoul, South Korea. He spent his early years as a missionary kid in Swaziland, South Africa. Currently, Ben lives in Columbus, Ohio with his beautiful wife Gia.Ben is a graduate of Capital University Law School where he received his Juris Doctorate. Ben's other interests include leading worship for his church, playing golf and pickleball.Contact Ben:Website: www.appreciationfinancial.comEmail: bjerome@appreciationfinancial.com

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith is perhaps best known for opposing many campaign finance regulations on First Amendment grounds. On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we talk with the former chairman about how political campaign activity is regulated in America and how this regulation implicates the First Amendment. We also explore some of today’s hot-button campaign finance controversies. Smith is a professor of law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. From 2000 until 2005, he served as a FEC commissioner. He was FEC chairman in 2004 and vice chairman in 2003. In 2005, Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics, now known as the Institute for Free Speech. Show notes: http://www.thefire.org/anniversary Podcast transcript Cases: Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Randall v. Sorrell (2006) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) Timeline: The history of campaign finance regulation Faulty Assumptions and the Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform by Bradley A. Smith (1996) Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform by Bradley A. Smith (2009) Stormy weather for campaign-finance laws National Enquirer didn’t commit a crime by killing Trump affair stories www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Adam and Jeannie interview bestselling author and leading sales expert Anthony Iannarino. Closing in on meaningful relationships with Anthony Iannarino Automation is great, but it makes creating lasting relationships with sales prospects much harder. What’s more, dated sales tactics drive what we don't automate. So that personal attention we’re giving often chalks up to wasted energy where both salespeople and customers are concerned. While automation and dated closing tactics may lead to better sales for the short-term, they lack the Customers today are smarter, busier, and demand more meaningful engagement from the companies they do business with. “You only need 2 things to be a trusted advisor: You need trust, and you need advice.” -Anthony Iannarino Not only to close more sales, but to create better long-term value from clients and prospects, we need to become “trusted advisors” to our customers, not just salespeople. So in this ever-connected, fast-moving world, that means finding the right balance between technology and one-on-one engagement. It’s not an easy thing to do! “The end close where I ask you for your business is either the easiest thing to do in the world or the most difficult.” -Anthony Iannarino We’re lucky to have leading sales expert Anthony Iannarino to help us sort these things out! In fact, we found that most of us could benefit from a better approach. In this episode, Anthony shares his world-class sales experience and tips from his bestselling books. He shares his very best advice on building trust, using automation, researching prospects, amazing closing techniques, and more! Interview Highlights What piqued Anthony’s interest in helping others produce better sales results? [4:40] Anthony outlines modern challenges in becoming a trusted advisor to customers, rather than just a salesperson. [7:10] Researching sales prospects online helps start relationships on a more meaningful level, but Anthony has an interesting take on this. [9:20] Anthony shares tips for balancing automation with human interaction, and how to anticipate when a distinction is necessary. [14:00] Anthony shares highlights from his book The Lost Art of Closing to help us understand better closing techniques. [17:20] How can we counsel salespeople to not only make reasonable, meaningful promises, but always deliver on them? [21:40] Many sales professionals believe in the concept of “under-promising and over-delivering,” but Anthony has a better idea... [26:10] About our guest Anthony Iannarino is an international speaker, bestselling author of two books, and a sales leader. Anthony is the Managing Director of B2B Sales Coach & Consultancy, a coaching and consulting firm he started in 2007. Anthony has worked for—and spoken to—global giants like Accenture, Abbot Laboratories, IDEXX, NetJets, Novo Nordisk, BAE Systems, Toro, TransUnion, Wells Fargo, General Electric, RR Donnelly, Wells Fargo, and CH Robinson. Anthony graduated from Capital University with a summa cum laude dual major in Political Science and English Literature. He then attended Capital University Law School on the Dean’s Academic Scholarship. He also attended Harvard Business School, completing their Owner President Manager Executive Education program. Anthony is internationally recognized as a thought leader in sales and leadership, with his award winning The Sales Blog being read by 65,000 people each month. His Sunday Newsletter reaches 80,000 people each week. Anthony has been named one the 50 most influential people in sales by Top Sales World. He was also named one of the 25 most influential people in sales and marketing by Open View Partners. In addition to writing daily at The Sales Blog since 2010 and posting a daily vlog on YouTube, Anthony is also a contributing editor at SUCCESS Magazine and ThinkSales Magazine. He also writes an occasional column for Selling Power Magazine and Forbes Magazine. Anthony’s first book, The Only Sales Guide You’ll Ever Need, released in October, 2016 is a national bestseller. His second book, The Lost Art of Closing: Winning the Ten Commitments That Drive Sales was released on August 8th and immediately shot up to number 1 in new releases in sales and selling. Anthony’s books have already been translated into two forms of Chinese, Italian, Polish, Arabic, and Indonesian. Connect with Anthony Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube Website Related Content 360Connext® post, Which Comes First? Customer Experience or Sales? Customers That Stick® post, 5 Lessons Salespeople Can Teach Customer Service Professionals Episode 263: Merit Gest, Sales Engagement Episode 104: Pat Helmers, Sales Babble Podcast We’re on C-Suite Radio! Check it out for more great podcasts Sponsor message: Start creating a successful CX strategy Are you ready to build a customer experience strategy on a solid foundation for the long term? We’re shattering the top 5 CX strategy myths in our latest evergreen webinar. You will learn: How to avoid the 5 so-called “Customer Experience Strategies” that aren’t strategies at all What drives a winning customer experience strategy and examples of companies that “get it” How to create a foundation for a customer experience strategy that works for the long term Join Jeannie at a time that works for you for some serious mythbusting and a head start on creating a customer experience strategy that works!  Sign Me Up!     Take care of yourself and take care of your customers.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bradley Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, discusses a new bipartisan plan in the Senate to regulate online advertising after foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election. He speaks with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Bradley Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, discusses a new bipartisan plan in the Senate to regulate online advertising after foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election. He speaks with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law.

(Bloomberg) -- Bradley Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid Plc, discuss a new bipartisan plan in the Senate to regulate online advertising after foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Bradley Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid Plc, discuss a new bipartisan plan in the Senate to regulate online advertising after foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law.

Congress' passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not end the debate on campaign finance. Instead, it arguably created more legal questions than it did answers. -- The Act's passage quickly unleashed subsequent litigation, resulting in a number of Supreme Court decisions directly related to the BCRA and, more broadly, to general laws regulating campaign finance. These recent Supreme Court cases, including the much-discussed Citizens United decision, struck down many campaign regulations on the grounds that they infringe upon individuals' First Amendment rights. Some have charged that decisions like these have increased the influence of a privileged few in our political system. Others have argued that these decisions are not only doctrinally correct, but the prudential fears many have expressed have not been borne out. -- Still, Americans remain discontented with the current campaign finance regime. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in 2015, 46% of respondents agree that the country needs to completely rebuild its campaign finance system, while 39% believed it requires fundamental change. Today, groups and individuals continue to fight limits on political contributions, and restrictions on political speech, while others push for stricter regulations. -- This panel will weigh in on whether decisions like Citizens United are correct as a matter of law, and if they are desirable from a policy perspective. The panel will also discuss the jurisprudential foundations of Citizens United—including the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo—and where future fights over campaign finance regulations are likely to occur. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former FEC Commissioner; Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice; Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

Anthony Iannarino is an international speaker, an author, and entrepreneur. Anthony is the Managing Director of B2B Sales Coach & Consultancy. He also owns part of his family’s staffing business, a company he has grown from 3M to 45M with a small sales force of 6 people. Anthony teaches Professional Selling, Persuasive Marketing, and Social Media Marketing at Capital University’s School of Management and Leadership. Anthony graduated from Capital University with a summa cum laude dual major in Political Science and English Literature. He then attended Capital University Law School on the Dean’s Academic Scholarship. Without a break in between, he attended Harvard Business School, completing their Owner President Manager executive education. Anthony is internationally recognized as a thought leader in sales, with his award winning The Sales Blog being read by 65,000 people each month. His Sunday newsletter reaches 80,000 people each week. Anthony has been named one the 50 most influential people in sales by Top Sales World. He was also named one of the 25 most influential people in sales by Open View Partners. In addition to writing daily at The Sales Blog since 2010, Anthony is also a contributing editor at SUCCESS Magazine and ThinkSales Magazine. He also writes an occasional column for Forbes. Anthony has worked for—and spoken to—global giants like Accenture, Abbot Laboratories, Net-Jets, Toro, and CH Robinson.Learn more: www.iannarino.comInfluential Influencers with Mike Saundershttp://businessinnovatorsradio.com/influential-entrepreneurs-with-mike-saunders/

Anthony Iannarino is an international speaker, an author, and entrepreneur. Anthony is the Managing Director of B2B Sales Coach & Consultancy. He also owns part of his family’s staffing business, a company he has grown from 3M to 45M with a small sales force of 6 people. Anthony teaches Professional Selling, Persuasive Marketing, and Social Media Marketing at Capital University’s School of Management and Leadership. Anthony graduated from Capital University with a summa cum laude dual major in Political Science and English Literature. He then attended Capital University Law School on the Dean’s Academic Scholarship. Without a break in between, he attended Harvard Business School, completing their Owner President Manager executive education. Anthony is internationally recognized as a thought leader in sales, with his award winning The Sales Blog being read by 65,000 people each month. His Sunday newsletter reaches 80,000 people each week. Anthony has been named one the 50 most influential people in sales by Top Sales World. He was also named one of the 25 most influential people in sales by Open View Partners. In addition to writing daily at The Sales Blog since 2010, Anthony is also a contributing editor at SUCCESS Magazine and ThinkSales Magazine. He also writes an occasional column for Forbes. Anthony has worked for—and spoken to—global giants like Accenture, Abbot Laboratories, Net-Jets, Toro, and CH Robinson.Learn more: www.iannarino.comInfluential Influencers with Mike Saundershttp://businessinnovatorsradio.com/influential-entrepreneurs-with-mike-saunders/

Overlapping jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies can lead to confusion and sometimes even contradictory requirements for private actors, and turf battles among agencies. Further, questions arise about the legitimacy of regulations promulgated by an agency that does not appear to have primary responsibility for an area, when the agency that has that primary responsibility has failed or declined to act. Among the myriad items in the 2016 omnibus appropriations bill were two curious provisions: a prohibition on the Internal Revenue Service from spending funds to write new regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, and a prohibition on the Securities and Exchange Commission from spending funds to write regulations that would require companies to report political contributions and donations to tax exempt organizations. Both edicts are responses to intense advocacy for these agencies to undertake the respective rulemakings, following refusal by the Federal Election Commission to expand disclosure. Moreover, advocates of campaign finance regulation continue to seek new political regulations at the Federal Communications Commission and for the Department of Justice to undertake broader inquiries. As a whole, one might call these efforts “administrative hopscotch”—seeking regulation or enforcement from an agency when another with unequivocal jurisdiction refuses to act. Is expanding the jurisdictions of federal agencies to such extent that they may regulate the same activity a constitutional problem? Practically speaking, what does this mean for innovators when they must comply with repetitive or diverse red tape? Furthermore, what happens when the regulations conflict, as already seen between certain IRS and FEC provisions? -- Ideally, this panel would feature former commissioners from executive agencies who have faced these efforts. They could briefly discuss what they considered the appropriate regulatory purview of their agency, their thoughts on administrative overlap, and whether or not administrative hopscotch is a real problem. The FEC circumvention is ongoing and intense, with media scrutiny and support of hopscotch by its more active commissioners. However, it is likely there are many examples that would make for good discussion and an important panel. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners and former Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission; Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Cass & Associates and former Commissioner and Vice-Chairman, US International Trade Commission; and Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law, Capital University Law School and former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission. Moderator: Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

Richard Pildes of the New York University School of Law and Bradley Smith of the Capital University Law School discuss the history and meaning of the last Reconstruction Amendment.

Richard Pildes of the New York University School of Law and Bradley Smith of the Capital University Law School discuss the history and meaning of the last Reconstruction Amendment.