Body of law
Attorney Joe Samo analyzes a lawsuit against the Poway Unified School District alleging the superintendent bullied a high school softball player. The underlying issue might have started over a group of softball players who didn't clap when the superintendent's daughter received an award at a softball banquet. Learn about Constitutional Law, Evidence, Civil Procedure, and much morel, while listening to this crazy story about high schoolers, parents, and coaches fighting each other. You'll love this one! SUPPORT THE PODCAST - donate money to keep the content coming your way :) -VENMO: @Joe-Samo-1PayPal: email@example.com$$$$----------------------Link to purchase this amazing book: https://amzn.to/47lE3kXWebsite: www.SamoLaw.comEmail: joe@SamoLaw.comInstagram: @runitbymylawyer#DelNorteSoftball #PUSD #ClapperGate
Navigating Study Challenges and New Updates in Bar Exam Prep In this discussion, the hosts answer various questions from students surrounding their bar exam preparations. Among the topics discussed are the challenges of studying during the holiday season, the implementation of alternative pathways to licensure, and the importance of early preparation for the July 2024 exam. They also delve into the role of PhotoReading and Mind Mapping in understanding difficult subjects like CivPro and CrimPro. Lastly, they announced the offering of the Bar Prep Bootcamp Booster, to further assist students in their preparation. 0:00 Episode 452 00:18 Challenges of Studying During the Holiday Season 01:18 Alternative Pathways to Licensure 06:05 Introducing the Bar Prep Bootcamp Booster 10:00 Addressing Student Questions: Mind Mapping and Photo Reading 25:05 Challenges of Studying for the Bar Exam 25:31 The Importance of Starting Early 25:54 Understanding Constitutional Law Questions 26:01 The Lemon Test in Con Law 26:36 The Limitations of Licensed Questions 26:52 The Impact of Recent Decisions on Bar Exam Questions 28:04 The Importance of Foundational Principles in Constitutional Law 28:29 The Danger of Memorizing Black Letter Law 29:05 The Role of the Bar Examiners in Test Questions 29:18 The Importance of Being Process Oriented 30:14 The Role of Free Speech in Bar Exam Questions 31:06 The Importance of Analyzing the Problem 31:16 The Limitations of IRAC 32:04 The Impact of Trial Dates on Bar Exam Preparation 33:51 Understanding Bar Maps 36:00 The Importance of PhotoReading in Bar Exam Preparation 38:51 The Challenges of Understanding Bar Exam Questions 43:32 The Importance of Mind Mapping in Understanding Bar Exam Subjects 47:40 The Importance of Making Good Use of Study Time Want to know what's keeping you from success on the bar exam? Take this FREE 60-second [QUIZ] What's Your #1 Bar Exam Mistake? [QUIZ] What's Your #1 Bar Exam Mistake? Video Episode 452 Featured in this Episode: BarMaps® From Celebration Bar Review Calming The Chaos™ Mindset Coaching Order PhotoReading For The Bar Exam™ New Multistate Nutshell Videos™ Do Something Different! FREE Webinar Free Consultation with Jackson
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll
Does the US Constitution prevent former President Trump from holding the office again? George welcomes Constitutional Law expert, Chris Murray who has been asked to author a friend of the court brief on the case appeal. What does the 14th Amendment say? Does it cover the President? Did the judge in the Colorado case set the table for another court to keep Trump off the ballot? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Significance of Legislative History. 1. Exploration of Legislative History as a Source of Interpretation. Legislative history refers to the record of deliberations, debates, and documents generated during the drafting and passage of a law. Analyzing legislative history can shed light on the framers' intentions and the problems they sought to address. Significance: Legislative history is a valuable tool in constitutional interpretation. It helps courts understand the context in which a law was created, providing insights into the framers' goals and the societal issues they aimed to resolve. Example: In the case of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), which dealt with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, the Supreme Court analyzed the legislative history of the Second Amendment to understand the framers' intent. The Importance of Congressional Intent. 1. Understanding the Importance of Congressional Intent. The intent of the legislature, often referred to as congressional intent, holds a central place in constitutional analysis. Courts aim to discern the purpose and objectives that lawmakers had in mind when enacting a law. Significance: Congressional intent provides a guiding principle in constitutional interpretation. It ensures that the courts are aligned with the legislature's goals, preventing laws from being interpreted in ways contrary to the intentions of those who drafted and passed them. Example: In the case of Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of deferring to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes when Congress's intent is unclear. Techniques for Researching and Analyzing Legislative History. 1. Exploration of Techniques for Researching Legislative History. Researching legislative history involves examining a variety of documents, including committee reports, floor debates, and conference reports. This comprehensive approach helps uncover the nuances of legislative intent. Techniques: Committee Reports: These reports often contain detailed explanations of a bill's provisions and the problems it seeks to address. Floor Debates: Transcripts of debates can provide insights into lawmakers' views on specific provisions and their understanding of the law. Conference Reports: These reports reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill, offering a clearer picture of the final legislative compromise. Significance: By employing these techniques, researchers and legal practitioners can construct a more holistic understanding of legislative intent. Example: In United States v Rutherford (1982), the Supreme Court examined legislative history to determine whether Congress intended the term "use of a firearm" to include brandishing a firearm. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
On today's episode, Bridget Crawford and Emily Waldman of Pace University School of Law join me and UVA Law 3Ls Kate Granruth and Jenna Smith. Bridget Crawford's scholarship focuses on taxation and gender and the law. She teaches courses on Federal Income Taxation; Estate and Gift Taxation; and Wills, Trusts and Estates. Emily Waldman teaches courses on Constitutional Law, Law & Education, Employment Law, and Civil Procedure. Today we're discussing their book, Menstruation Matters: Challenging the Law's Silence on Periods, published by NYU Press in 2022 and their 2022 article, Contextualizing Menopause in the Law, co-authored with my UVA colleague, Naomi Cahn, and published in the Harvard Journal of Gender and the Law. Show Notes:"Menstruation in a Post-Dobbs World," 98 NYU L. Rev. Online 191 (2023) (Crawford and Waldman)"Pink Tax and Other Tropes," 33 Yale J.L. & Feminism 88 (2023) (Crawford)"Managing and Monitoring the Menopausal Body," 2022 U. Chi. Legal Forum (forthcoming 2022) (Cahn, Crawford, & Waldman)"Contextualizing Menopause in the Law," 43 Harv. J. Gender & Law 1 (2022) (Cahn, Crawford, and Waldman)"Working Through Menopause," 99 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1531 (2022) (Cahn, Crawford, and Waldman)Andrew Jennings and Kimberly D. Krawiec, Vice Capital (forthcoming 2024)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible standards. This panel brings together several of the most formidable constitutional scholars of a generation to discuss natural law and constitutional conservatism alongside Professor Arkes.Featuring:Prof. Hadley P. Arkes, Founder and Director, James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding & Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus, Amherst CollegeProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitModerator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence & Director, James Madison Program, Princeton UniversityOverflow: Chinese Room
Featuring:Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of AmericaProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the ConstitutionProf. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
No one maintains that the Court has always and forever been originalist in its orientation. By any definition of "originalism," there is a vast body of case law that does not conform to it.How do and should modern originalists - and here one might specifically include lower-court judges who consider themselves originalist - handle this case law? Do non-originalist precedents count for nothing, no matter the expectations built upon them? If they count, how much do they count? Given the interconnectedness of the Constitution's provisions and structure, does it make sense to be "originalist" in some respects and some contexts but not others? Does originalism itself provide means to answer, or even address, these questions or does one necessarily have to step outside originalism to establish its relationship to precedent?Featuring:Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawProf. Randy Kozel, Fritz Duda Family Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Gary Lawson, William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitOverflow: Chinese Room
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
What do Critical Race Theory and antisemitism have in common? A lot, actually, from the roots of each movement, to the ideology, to the way they are weaponized by the left today. The overarching philosophy linking these movements together is a Manichean ordering of peoples into groups of oppressed or oppressor – usually, but not always, based on the color of one's skin. Indeed, it is no mistake that in the aftermath of WWII, Jews sought to categorize themselves as white, a move that has now fed the bizarre oppressor/colonizer trope so popular on the left. First Jews weren't white enough for the white supremacists, but now are too white for the CRT crowd. Not to mention the shifting ideological assaults on Jewish groups, once accused of being communists now accused of being capitalists. Yes, donors are pulling out of universities that harbor pro-terrorist groups; yes, the support of Hamas the past few weeks has been a PR disaster for wokeism. But it will take a lot more than that to root out the antisemitic and real race-based discrimination that has gripped America.David E. Bernstein holds a University Professorship chair at the Antonin Scalia Law School, where he has been teaching since 1995. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of Michigan, Georgetown University, William & Mary, Brooklyn Law School, the University of Turin, and Hebrew University. Professor Bernstein teaches Constitutional Law, Evidence, and Products Liability. His most recent book is Classified, The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America.Download the transcript here.
In recent years, there has a growing concern that the Supreme Court of India is not firing on all cylinders. Critics have argued that the court functions in an opaque manner, exhibits excessive deference to the executive, is sluggish in concluding cases, and is hampered by an excessive reliance on super-lawyers who can get their cases heard for exorbitant fees.A new book, Court on Trial: A Data-Driven Account of the Supreme Court of India, examines each of these critiques, using hard data from the Court's own functioning. Milan's guest on the show this week is one of the book's authors, constitutional lawyer Aparna Chandra.Aparna is an associate professor of law at the National Law School of India, and has previously worked at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal and the National Law University in Delhi, where she founded the Centre for Constitutional Law, Policy and Governance.Milan and Aparna talk about the institutional crisis facing the Court, the Court's shocking backlog, and the arbitrary powers of the Chief Justice. Plus, the two discuss the controversy around judicial appointments, the excessive deference the Court pays to the government of the day, and what if anything can be done to improve the Court's effectiveness. Episode notes:“A Court in Crisis? Interview with the authors of 'Court on Trial', a data-driven analysis of the Supreme Court of India,” Bar&Bench, September 7, 2023.[VIDEO] “How do we fix the Supreme Court of India?” Scroll Ideas, September 1, 2023.Soutik Biswas, “Supreme Court: Why India's powerful top court is in a 'crisis,'” BBC News, July 31, 2023.
Case Law and Its Role in Constitutional Interpretation. 1. Examination of the Common Law Tradition. The common law tradition, inherited from English legal principles, forms the foundation of case law. In this tradition, judges' decisions in individual cases create legal precedents that guide future rulings. Significance: Case law provides an evolving body of legal principles that adapts to societal changes and addresses novel legal questions. This flexibility is particularly crucial in constitutional law, where interpretations may need to respond to evolving societal norms. Example: The common law tradition allows judges to interpret constitutional provisions in light of changing circumstances. For instance, the application of the Fourth Amendment to emerging technologies like smartphones has been shaped through case law. 2. The Role of Case Law in Constitutional Interpretation. Case law is instrumental in interpreting and applying constitutional provisions. Supreme Court decisions, in particular, set binding precedents that lower courts must follow. These decisions clarify constitutional principles and guide future rulings. Significance: The evolving nature of case law ensures that constitutional interpretations remain relevant and responsive to contemporary challenges. Supreme Court decisions, in particular, carry significant weight in shaping the legal landscape. Example: Brown v Board of Education (1954) is a landmark case that fundamentally altered constitutional interpretation, rejecting the "separate but equal" doctrine and declaring state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. Judicial Precedent in Constitutional Interpretation. 1. Understanding the Hierarchy of Courts. The U.S. legal system has a hierarchical structure of courts. Decisions made by higher courts, especially the Supreme Court, carry more weight as precedent than decisions by lower courts. This hierarchy ensures consistency and stability in the law. Significance: Supreme Court decisions are binding on all lower courts, creating a uniform interpretation of constitutional provisions across the country. However, the Court can also overturn its own precedent in certain circumstances. Example: When a federal district court in one state faces a constitutional question, it must follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court, ensuring a consistent application of constitutional principles. 2. Overview of Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Landmark Supreme Court cases play a pivotal role in constitutional interpretation. These decisions often involve issues of profound societal importance and shape the legal landscape for generations. Significance: Landmark cases establish important legal principles and interpretations that influence subsequent decisions. They are critical in defining and protecting constitutional rights. Example: Roe v Wade (1973) is a landmark case that recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, based on the right to privacy implicit in the Constitution. 3. Role of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law. Stare decisis, the principle of adhering to precedent, is fundamental in constitutional law. While the Court has the authority to overturn its own precedent, it generally follows established decisions to ensure stability and predictability in the law. Significance: Stare decisis contributes to the legitimacy of the legal system by providing consistency and fostering public confidence in the judiciary. Example: The principle of stare decisis was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), where the Court upheld the essential holding of Roe v Wade, citing the importance of precedent in preserving the rule of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
In this podcast, Jeff breaks down the utter insanity of Jew hate which has erupted globally as well as in NYC and throughout American college campuses. And he points out that now is the time to speak up. If you can't open your mouth now, you may never get another chance. Some students are heeding the call and refusing to be silent. Some strong voices for justice are coming from the most shocking places. Maybe it's time for you to wake up as well?Subscribe on our website to get episodes sent directly to your email inbox on Monday mornings: https://BeyondTheLegalLimit.com/subscribe
Introduction to Statutory Law. Statutory law refers to laws passed by a legislative body, such as Congress, at the federal level or state legislatures. These laws address a wide range of issues, from criminal offenses and civil rights to environmental regulations and tax policies. Significance: Statutory law plays a crucial role in shaping constitutional interpretation. It can define and clarify the rights and responsibilities of individuals, government agencies, and other entities. Additionally, statutes can fill gaps in constitutional law or provide specific guidance on how to implement constitutional principles. Example: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal statute that addresses discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It complements the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by providing specific protections against discrimination in areas such as employment and public accommodations. Relationship Between Statutory Law and Constitutional Rights. The relationship between statutory law and constitutional rights is multi-faceted. Statutes can reinforce constitutional rights, provide remedies for violations, or expand upon constitutional protections. Key aspects of this relationship include: 1. Reinforcing Constitutional Rights. Statutory laws can reinforce and clarify constitutional rights. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, further upholding the principles of the Fifteenth Amendment. 2. Providing Remedies for Violations. Statutes often provide remedies for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated. They can establish mechanisms for legal action, such as lawsuits, to seek redress when rights are infringed upon. 3. Expanding Constitutional Protections. In some cases, statutory laws expand upon the protections provided by the Constitution. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for instance, extends protections to individuals with disabilities in various areas, ensuring equal access and opportunities. Significance: Statutory laws are tools that legislators use to address specific issues and challenges in society. They can be instrumental in enforcing constitutional rights, providing redress for violations, and adapting the legal framework to evolving social and technological changes. Example: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that ensures that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. It operationalizes the constitutional principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination for students with disabilities. Major Federal Statutes Impacting Constitutional Law. Several major federal statutes have had a significant impact on constitutional law. Let's explore a few of these statutes and their implications: 1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark statute prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It addresses issues related to employment, education, and public accommodations, reinforcing the principles of equal protection and due process. Significance: The Civil Rights Act has been a cornerstone of civil rights law, enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. 2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting. It provides mechanisms to ensure that individuals are not denied the right to vote on the basis of race or language minority status. Significance: This statute enforces the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and public accommodations. It ensures equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more I had another great conversation with Eric Segall about everything having to do with how much the Supreme Court affects our daily lives Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll
Former President Trump has solidified his spot as the frontrunner in the 2024 GOP Presidential Primary and, while he may be ahead in the polls, his ongoing legal troubles across four states have caused the public to shift their attention from his campaign to the courtroom. FOX News Contributor and Constitutional Law expert, Jonathan Turley joins Trey to discuss the former President's ongoing legal troubles and the influence this will have on Trump's presidential campaign as the clock counts down to November 2024. Jonathan also provides insight into the constitutionality of gag orders and the purpose they serve. Plus, Trey asks Jonathan his opinion on the growing trend of the opposing party to open impeachment inquiries into seating Presidents. Follow Trey on Twitter: @TGowdySC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dive into a thought-provoking discussion on the Marc Cox Morning Show as senior legal fellow, Hans von Spakovsky, from the Heritage Foundation sheds light on the legal intricacies surrounding attempts to remove Donald Trump's name from state ballots for the upcoming elections. Hans elaborates on the misapplication of Section Three of the 14th Amendment, clarifying how it doesn't pertain to Trump's eligibility for office. He provides detailed insights into the historical context, legal precedents, and congressional acts often overlooked in these debates, pointing out the potential chaos and constitutional misunderstandings that could arise if these motions were entertained.
In this podcast, Jeff provides an update on the war between Israel and Palestinian terrorists: “humanitarian” terror supporters are rampaging all over America and Europe demanding a ceasefire — even as they call for the genocide of Jews. Has anyone noticed either the hypocrisy of the “protestors” or that somehow we allowed hundreds of thousands of Islamist maniacs into our country after 9/11?Donald Trump definitely will not be in prison by Election Day. No chance.And Jeff has very colorful memories of a Puerto Rican Day Parade he was caught in the middle of, and how he, a white lawyer from NJ, survived it.
Amendments Beyond the Bill of Rights. 1. The Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, is a pivotal component of the post-Civil War amendments. It prohibits the denial of voting rights based on an individual's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Significance: The Fifteenth Amendment sought to enfranchise African American men who had been denied the right to vote in many parts of the United States due to racial discrimination and the legacy of slavery. It was a significant step toward achieving civil rights and political participation. Example: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, draws its authority from the Fifteenth Amendment. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices like literacy tests and poll taxes. 2. The Nineteenth Amendment. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, granted women the right to vote. It marked a substantial expansion of suffrage and women's rights. Significance: The Nineteenth Amendment recognized the importance of gender equality in a democracy and extended the right to vote to over half of the U.S. population, promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy. Example: The women's suffrage movement, characterized by activists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, played a significant role in advocating for the Nineteenth Amendment. 3. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It was a response to concerns about young people being drafted into the military to fight in the Vietnam War while not having the right to vote. Significance: This amendment recognized that individuals aged 18 to 20 who could be drafted into the military should also have the right to vote. It underscored the importance of equal representation and participation in the democratic process. Example: In the case of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Congress's authority to lower the voting age, setting an important precedent. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions. The interpretation of constitutional provisions is a dynamic process that shapes how the Constitution is applied to contemporary issues. The Supreme Court plays a central role in this process by rendering decisions that clarify the meaning of the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Landmark Supreme Court cases have significantly influenced the interpretation of the Constitution. Here are a few examples: Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws or actions of the government unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This case declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine. Roe v. Wade (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, based on the right to privacy. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This case held that political spending by corporations is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. Precedent in Shaping Constitutional Law. The doctrine of precedent, often referred to as "stare decisis," plays a critical role in shaping constitutional law. It means that courts should follow previous decisions, particularly those made by higher courts, when deciding similar cases. Significance: Precedent ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system. When a case is decided based on precedent, it helps maintain the rule of law and ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. Example: The principle of "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), setting a new precedent that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
Michael A. Ventrella is an author and editor who has written novels, short stories, and nonfiction books including Big Stick, Terin Ostler and the Axes of Evil, and The Beatles on the Charts. Ventrella is also an attorney and has taught Constitutional Law at a number of institutions of higher learning. Just in time for elections and the upcoming holiday season, he speaks with Wendy about his helpful and humorous book, How to Argue the Constitution With a Conservative. Before the interview in The Earthscape segment, Wendy Sheridan and Robin Renée reflect on the meaning of and plans for the holiday of Samhain and how it interweaves with secular Halloween fun. Donald Trump's gag orders, the argument for keeping Trump off of the 2024 presidential ballot, new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a simulation of the Chicxulub impact, and debt activists to the rescue are all part of All the News We Can Handle. In This Fortnight I Learned, Robin and Wendy each discover something mildly interesting about breakfast cereal. Things to do: VOTE! Learn more about Michael A. Ventrella on his website. Keep up with Michael A. Ventrella on Facebook, X/Twitter, and Instagram. Get the book! How to Argue the Constitution With a Conservative Attend Philcon - the world's first and longest-running conference on science fiction, fantasy, and horror! November 17-19, Doubletree by Hilton, Cherry Hill, NJ. Watch Micheal A. Ventrella read the first chapter from How to Argue the Constitution With a Conservative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owMyfhce_vQ
Сергей Белов — профессор права юридического факультета СПбГУ, заведующий кафедрой конституционного права и декан юридического факультета. Профессор Белов преподает конституционное право (помимо общего курса также «Судебный контроль в юрисдикциях общего права», «Бизнес и права человека», «Конституционные вопросы права на здоровье» и т. д.) и проводит исследования в тех же областях. В последнее время он фокусируется на исследованиях ценностей права в целом и конституционного права в частности, пересмотра Конституции, конституционных культур по всему миру и (пост)глобализации в конституционном праве, а также междисциплинарных исследований по праву и языку, а также по социальным вопросам отношения в системе здравоохранения. Sergei Belov is a law professor at St.Petersburg State University Law Faculty, the head of Constitutional Law chair and the dean of the Law Faculty. Professor Belov teaches Constitutional Law (above the general course also Judicial Review in Common Law Jurisdictions, Business and Human Rights, Constitutional Issues of the Right to Health, etc) and does researches in the same fields. Recently he focuses on researches on values in law in general and in Constitutional law in particular, Constitutional review, Constitutional cultures around the Globe and (post)globalization in constitutional law, as well as inter-disciplinary researches on the Law and Language and on social relations in the healthcare system. FIND SERGEI ON SOCIAL MEDIA VKontakte ================================SUPPORT & CONNECT:Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/denofrichTwitter: https://twitter.com/denofrichFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.develman/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/denofrichInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/den_of_rich/Hashtag: #denofrich© Copyright 2023 Den of Rich. All rights reserved.
Safeguarding Fair and Just Criminal Trials. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a pivotal role in ensuring that criminal defendants are afforded a fair and just trial. This amendment outlines a set of fundamental rights designed to protect individuals facing criminal charges and to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. Let's delve into the key components of the Sixth Amendment: 1. Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial. The Sixth Amendment grants individuals the right to a fair and speedy trial. This means that criminal cases should be resolved without undue delay, and defendants should have the opportunity to present their case promptly. Significance: The right to a speedy trial is essential to prevent individuals from languishing in jail for extended periods before trial. It also ensures that evidence and witnesses remain available and reliable. Example: If a person is arrested and charged with a crime, the government is obligated to bring the case to trial within a reasonable time. Delays caused by the prosecution or the court that prejudice the defendant's case may violate this right. 2. Right to Legal Counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel. Specifically, it states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." Significance: The right to legal counsel ensures that individuals accused of crimes have access to competent representation to navigate the complexities of the legal system. Legal counsel plays a crucial role in safeguarding defendants' rights and ensuring a fair trial. Example: When an individual is charged with a crime, they have the right to an attorney. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them, typically a public defender, to represent their interests. 3. Right to Confront Witnesses. The Sixth Amendment grants the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" the accused. This principle, known as the Confrontation Clause, means that individuals facing criminal charges have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses testifying against them. Significance: The Confrontation Clause is vital in ensuring that the accused can challenge the credibility and accuracy of witness testimony. It prevents the use of anonymous or secret witnesses. Example: If a witness provides testimony against a defendant in court, the defendant's attorney has the right to cross-examine that witness, asking questions to test the witness's credibility and accuracy. 4. Right to Compulsory Process. The Sixth Amendment includes the right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." This means that individuals accused of a crime have the right to compel the attendance of favorable witnesses to testify on their behalf. Significance: The right to compulsory process empowers defendants to present evidence and witnesses who can support their case. It ensures that they have the means to challenge the prosecution's evidence effectively. Example: If a defendant believes that a particular witness can provide valuable testimony that supports their innocence, they have the right to compel that witness to appear and testify in court. 5. Right to an Impartial Jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury. The jury is expected to be fair, unbiased, and free from outside influence. Significance: An impartial jury is essential to the integrity of the trial process. It ensures that the case is decided based on the evidence presented in court rather than preconceived biases. Example: During jury selection, both the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to question potential jurors to identify any potential biases or prejudices that could affect their ability to be impartial. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more I had another great conversation with Eric Segall about everything having to do with how much the Supreme Court affects our daily lives Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Adam White and Jace Lington talk with Josh Chafetz and Noah Rosenblum about some of the big administrative law cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. They discuss the state of the Court, where things might be headed next, and problems with conservative critiques of the Administrative State.Notes:Noah Rosenblum, What We Talk About When We Talk About the Rule of Law in the Administrative State, New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2023)Josh Chafetz, The New Judicial Power Grab, St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 67 (2023)CFPB v. CFAS, Brief of Professors of History and Constitutional Law as Amici Curiae (2023)Beau J. Baumann, Americana Administrative Law, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 111 (2023)Nikolas Bowie & Daphna Renan, The Separation-of-Powers Counterrevolution, Vol. 131, No. 7 (2022)Ashraf Ahmed, Lev Menand, Noah Rosenblum, The Tragedy of Presidential Administration, Gray Center Working Paper, 2021Josh Chafetz, Congress's Constitution (2019)Leah Litman, Debunking Antinovelty, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 66, No. 7 (2017)Kent Barnett & Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 1 (2017)Daniel R. Ernst, Tocqueville's Nightmare, Oxford University Press (2014)Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents (1991)
On this episode, referendums expert Matt Qvortrup and social researcher Nicholas Biddle join us to examine the Voice referendum result. How important was the lack of bipartisanship to the outcome of the referendum? Could the government have done more to convince opposition leader Peter Dutton to support the proposal? And is the emphatic ‘no' vote a sign of the Liberals' rising stock, or will elements of the campaign backfire on the party at the next election? On this episode of Democracy Sausage, leading referendums expert Professor Matt Qvortrup and head of the ANUpoll Professor Nicholas Biddle join Professor Mark Kenny and Dr Marija Taflaga to discuss what went wrong for the ‘yes' campaign.Matt Qvortrup is a Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at the ANU College of Law and Chair of Political Science at Coventry University.Nicholas Biddle is an Associate Director and Professor at the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods.Marija Taflaga is the Director of the ANU Centre for the Study of Australian Politics and a Lecturer at the ANU School of Politics and International Relations.Mark Kenny is a Professor at the ANU Australian Studies Institute. He came to the University after a high-profile journalistic career including six years as chief political correspondent and national affairs editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times.Democracy Sausage with Mark Kenny is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to firstname.lastname@example.org.This podcast is produced by The Australian National University. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
National is being warned that its pledge to change laws in the first 100 days will probably take some time to implement. The party committed to an action plan to deliver on promises including the banning of gang patches, repealing Labour's water services reform legislation, and cracking down on serious youth offending. Barrister and constitutional law expert Mai Chen told Mike Hosking that this won't get off the ground straight away. She says no laws can be changed until Parliament is re-established, so it will be difficult to implement most of the first 100 days programme. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this podcast, Jeff discusses the aftermath of last week's Palestinian massacre in Israel — laid bare are two opposing sides in the battle for civilization: you're either with Israel against the Islamic terror horde or you are with the terrorists. This is a battle between light and darkness, good and evil. There is no more grey area. Silence is complicity. Pick your side wisely.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comMartha is a philosopher and legal thinker. She has taught at Harvard, Brown, Oxford and is currently the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Philosophy Department and the Law School. Her many books include The Fragility of Goodness, Sex and Social Justice, Creating Capabilities, and From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law. Her new book, which we discuss in this episode, is Justice for Animals.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — on whether fish feel pain, and if we should sterilize city rats instead of killing them — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: Martha growing up in NYC; converting to Judaism; studying Latin and Greek; becoming a professional actress; giving up meat; her late daughter's profound influence on Justice For Animals; Aristotle's views on justice; the difference between instinct and sentience; why crustaceans and insects probably don't feel pain; preventing pain vs. stopping cruelty; Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer; the matriarchal society of orcas; Martha and Amartya Sen's creation of the “capability approach”; how zoos prevent pain but nevertheless limit life; how parrots are content living solo, even in a lab; why we shouldn't rank animals according to intelligence; George Pitcher's The Dogs Who Came to Stay; the various ways humans are inept compared to animals; how a dolphin can detect human pregnancy; how some animals have a precise sense of equality; the diffuse brain of the octopus; the emotional lives of elephants; our brutality toward pigs; why the intelligence of plants is merely “handwaving”; how humans are the only animals to show disgust with their own bodies; our sublimation of violent instincts; mammals and social learning; Matthew Scully's Dominion and the “caring stewardship” of animals among Christians; whether humane meat on a mass scale is possible; the emergence of lab meat; Martha's advice on what you can do to protect animals; JR Ackerley's book My Dog Tulip; euthanasia; and various tales of Bowie, my beloved, late beagle.The subject of animal rights was first tackled on the Dishcast with vegan activist John Oberg, and we posted a ton of your commentary here. Browse the Dishcast archive for another convo you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up soon: Spencer Klavan on How to Save the West: Ancient Wisdom for 5 Modern Crises and Matthew Crawford, author of Shop Class as Soulcraft. Later on, two NYT columnists — David Brooks and Pamela Paul — and the authors of Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira.Have a question you want me to ask one of these future guests? Email email@example.com, and please put the question in the subject line. Please send any guest recs, pod dissent and other comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ahead of the Voice referendum, SBS Russian asked Dr William Partlett, associate professor at Melbourne Law School, to comment on the most common arguments against the Voice. - 14 октября в Австралии пройдет референдум о Голосе Коренных народов. В предверии референдума мы попросили доктора Уилла Партлетта, эксперта по конституционному праву из Мельбурнского университета, прокомментировать наиболее распространенные аргументы «против».
This weekend saw the worst terror attack ever against Israel by the Palestinian-elected government. Children, women, and the elderly were raped, tortured, kidnapped, and killed. Citizens of multiple countries including the US, Mexico, and Germany were victims. Yet there are no #bringbackourgirls signs being held up by a sad-faced Michelle Obama, and Democrats held rallies for the Palestinian terrorists. Israel goes it alone, again, against the world's worst Muslim terrorists. Tune in to hear what they should do next.
We want to hear from you! Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete our survey. Your feedback helps understand what you love about Democracy Decoded and how we can make it even better. To show our thanks, you'll be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a $50 American Express gift card. We appreciate your time!----------------Campaign contribution limits are one of the few mechanisms in place to prevent wealthy special interests from spending unlimited money to rig the political system in their favor. But there are some states where it's just too easy to skirt around these limits and other states that actually don't have limits at all. In this episode of Democracy Decoded, host Simone Leeper highlights how without campaign contribution limits, the vast financial resources of special interests can outweigh the priorities of everyday citizens. Experts and advocates discuss the intricacies of the electoral playing field, and how to best protect the voter's right to elect candidates who truly represent their values. They highlight the work of grassroots coalitions and advocacy groups working together for fair and equitable campaign finance laws in states like Illinois and Oregon.Simone speaks with Alisa Kaplan, the Executive Director of Reform for Illinois, who illustrates how a provision in state law allows candidates to amass unlimited campaign contributions. Campaign Legal Center's founder and President Trevor Potter, and Patrick Llewellyn, Director of State Campaign Finance, offer insights into the broader landscape of states without contribution limits, and the importance of these laws in preserving the integrity of the democratic process. Simone also speaks with Kate Titus, the executive director of Common Cause Oregon, about a recent amendment in Oregon that introduced the possibility of contribution limits in the state, and the years of advocacy by voters that led to change.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Alisa Kaplan is the Executive Director of Reform for Illinois. She joined the organization in 2018, drawn to its long history of fighting for campaign finance reform and against systemic corruption. As Executive Director, she leads RFI's policy development, advocacy, and educational initiatives and oversees operations. A Yale graduate with a J.D. and Ph.D. in Political Science from Northwestern University, Alisa brings expertise in law and the political process and a background in community organizing, grassroots activism, and nonprofit administration. She has been a Faculty Lecturer at Northwestern, teaching Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, and Law and Politics. In her role at RFI, Alisa feels fortunate to be able to spend every day fighting for a more ethical and equitable Illinois government that works not just for the wealthy and well-connected, but for everyone.Trevor Potter is the founder and President of Campaign Legal Center. He leads CLC in its efforts to advance democracy through law. A Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Trevor was general counsel to John McCain's 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns and an adviser to the drafters of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. To many, he is perhaps best known for his recurring appearances on The Colbert Report as the lawyer for Stephen Colbert's super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, during the 2012 election, a program that won a Peabody Award for excellence in reporting on money in politics. Trevor has provided testimony and written statements to Congress on federal election proposals, campaign finance regulation and, recently, the effects of the January 6th attack on our democracy. He has also taught campaign finance law at the University of Virginia School of Law and Oxford University, and he has appeared widely in national broadcast and print media. During the 2020 election season, Trevor was named to the cross-partisan National Task Force on Election Crises.Patrick Llewellyn is Director, State Campaign Finance at Campaign Legal Center. He directs CLC's work with state and local stakeholders and policymakers to advance innovative campaign finance policies. Prior to joining CLC, Patrick worked as an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, where his practice focused on government transparency and he represented nonprofits, journalists and researchers at all levels of federal court, and as a staff attorney/teaching fellow in the Civil Rights Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center, where he supervised law students on voting rights, workers' rights and other civil rights matters in state and federal courts.Kate Titus serves as executive director of Common Cause Oregon. She brings to this work a background in public policy and community organizing, having worked previously for a number of other public interest organizations including Public Citizen and Oregon Action. Kate is a graduate of Connecticut College, and earned a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard. Links:Campaign Contribution Limits: OverviewState-by-state comparison of campaign finance requirementsCampaign finance requirements in IllinoisCampaign finance limits could come up short in Oregon Legislature — againPublic Financing of Elections About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.