Podcasts about constitutional law center

On March 20th, President Trump issued an executive order effectively abolishing the Department of Education. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have already filed a lawsuit to block the dismantling, alleging the executive branch has exceeded its constitutional authority and violated law. As the nation watches the flurry of executive orders and legal action unfold on public education, what does this mean for the nation's K-12 and higher education students?rnrnDerek Black is a Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, the Ernest F. Hollings Chair in Constitutional Law, and directs the Constitutional Law Center. He is one of the nation's foremost experts in education law and policy. He offers expert witness testimony in school funding, voucher, and federal policy litigation and his research is routinely cited in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.rnrnHe is also the author of a leading education law casebook, Education Law: Equality, Fairness, and Reform, and other books aimed at wider audiences. His 2020 book Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy describes a full-scale assault on public education that threatens not just public education but American democracy itself. His forthcoming book, Dangerous Learning: The South's Long War on Black Literacy outlines the enduring legacy of the nineteenth-century struggle for Black literacy in the American South.

From January 26, 2021: Jack Goldsmith sat down with Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of the new book, "The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution." They discussed McConnell's textual historical approach to interpreting presidential power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the many novel elements of executive power embodied in Article II and the proper understanding of Article II's Vesting Clause. They also talked about contemporary implications of Michael's reading of Article II for war powers, the unitary executive and late impeachments.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kate Huddleston, senior legal counsel of litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has acted lawfully in firing federal workers and freezing federal spending.  Resources Campaign Legal Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (March 3, 2025)  Michael McConnell and Laurence Tribe, “Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?,” Open to Debate (March 7, 2025)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have taken on a contentious role in the new Trump administration, which has affected federal agencies and thousands of workers. But are DOGE's actions legal? Those arguing they aren't worry it is overstepping and violating the Constitution. Those supporting DOGE's actions say it is operating under strict oversight while fulfilling its mandate. Now we debate: Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?    Arguing Yes: Laurence Tribe, University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School  Arguing No: Michael W. McConnell, Former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Law Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Most would agree that all of these [tribalism, polarization, racism, religious enmity, and antisemitism] are bad for society. They are perhaps a particular threat in a democracy like ours, which is predicated on the idea that people of very different backgrounds and ideas can coexist peacefully. Following decades of improvement in all these areas, they seem to be resurgent in the United States. What role have the law, the courts, and the culture played in contributing to this state of affairs? How can law best be deployed to combat it and what is the role of civil society vs. law?Featuring:Mr. Jay Edelson, Founder & CEO, Edelson PCProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolProf. David M. Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law SchoolMr. Matt Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic LibertieModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

In this episode, I talk about a new book that models the ten habits that any peacemaker should adopt. The author is Steven T. Collis and the book is Ten Habits of a Peacemaker. For those wondering how this book compares to the work of Ken Sande's The Peacemaker, the two are excellent companions. While Ken's is more theological (LISTEN), Steven's project looks at the process and psychological challenges of creating a space for constructive dialogue and common life. To that end, him and I spoke about the importance of habit formation, the challenges of navigating perception, the psychology underlying group-think, the various steps that an individual can take to develop the heart of a peacemaker, and much more. Steven researches and teaches on religion law, productive discourse, and other First Amendment topics at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. He is the founding faculty director of the Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and its Law & Religion Clinic. Before joining Texas Law, he was a Research Fellow in the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. Faculty bio. My first conversation with Steven can be found here. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Should presidents be immune from prosecution? If yes, under what circumstances? Stanford Professor Michael McConnell, a former federal judge, joins Pam Karlan for a discussion on presidential immunity, the Constitution, and former president Trump's cases. In this insightful episode, they discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's stance on criminal versus civil liabilities for presidents, the political ramifications of prosecutorial actions, and the historical context of executive power under the U.S. Constitution.

Join us for a closing banquet and the Arthur N. Rupe Debate, entitled "Resolved: The Separation of Powers is a Dangerous, Extraconstitutional Maxim." Special code on nametag required for admission.Featuring:Prof. Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, concerns whether federal government officials had violated the First Amendment by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.Multiple individuals, advocacy groups, academics, and some states sued various officials and federal agencies for censoring conservative-leaning speech on the 2020 election, COVID policies, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argued the officials and federal agencies used "jawboning" tactics to force social media companies to suppress content in a manner that violated the plaintiffs' freedom of speech. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction in the case, which was then vacated in part by the Fifth Circuit, which nonetheless held that there had been some violations of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted an emergency stay order and oral argument is set for March 18, 2024.In this recorded webinar we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went on the same day.Featuring:Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of LawDr. Matthew Seligman, Partner, Stris & Maher LLP & Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School(Moderator) Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Charles Coleman is in for Ali Velshi and is joined by Criminal Defense Attorney Danny Cevallos, Republican Political Strategist & Commentator Rina Shah, NBC News' Julia Jester, Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Senior Advisor with The Lincoln Project Tara Setmayer, Editor-at-Large with The 19th* Errin Haines, Fellow with the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law Matt Seligman, Professor of History at NYU Ruth Ben-Ghiat, NBC News' Matt Bradley, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), Professor of Law at NYU Melissa Murray, former U.S. Senator from Alabama Doug Jones

Featuring:Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience investigates the questions that surround the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause, breaking down the practical history of establishment and disestablishment in the United States of religion as law and argues that a Clause often seen as a defense against religion is valuable for promoting religious freedom and diversity in America. In this installment of our Talks with Authors series, Prof. Michael McConnel, co-author of the book, and Prof. Vincent Munoz discussed these themes and the history of the Establishment Clause in the United States.Featuring:Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolDr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

The associate director of Drake's Constitutional Law Center, Miguel Schor, is our podcast guest this week. Professor Schor delivered the 2023 Constitution Day lecture at the college, speaking on the many challenges confronting constitutional government in the United States and his proposals for fixing them.

Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of ConscienceIn one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America.The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America's culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it?Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause's original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices.In Agreeing to Disagree, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith.Nathan S. Chapman is the Pope F. Brock Associate Professor of Professional Responsibility at the University of Georgia School of Law, and a McDonald Distinguished Fellow of Law and Religion at the Emory Center for Law and Religion. He was formerly the Executive Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has argued sixteen cases in the United States Supreme Court, six of which involved the Religion Clauses. McConnell is also co-editor of Religion and the Constitution and Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought. His most recent book is The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution.Buy the book from Wellington Square Bookshop - ​https://wellingtonsquarebooks.indiecommerce.com/book/9780195304664

Michael is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.  He is also the author of the book the President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution.Rick is the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law at Stanford, and the author of the book Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone.  Rick is most famous co-hosting this podcast What Happens Next during the second half of 2020. Get full access to What Happens Next in 6 Minutes with Larry Bernstein at www.whathappensnextin6minutes.com/subscribe

I learned a lot from this conversation with Steven T. Collis. I first heard about him when I received a copy of his newest book, Praying with the Enemy, from his publisher. Although I am not great with the names of the gentleman this book is based off of, their story is one that will positively influence everyone who reads it. Hearing the story of two men put into an impossible situation who help each other survive during the Korean War was very intriguing to me because I had 2 grandfathers who were stationed in Germany during the war. We also talk about something I never talk about, which is politics. We talk about some very real issues going on around the time we recorded back in June of this year.  There is something on here for everyone, so take a listen and then share it with your people! Bio: Steven T. Collis is the author of the nonfiction books The Immortals and Deep Conviction and the novels Praying with the Enemy and At Any Cost. He is a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law and founding faculty director of UT's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and related Law & Religion Clinic. Prior to his appointment at UT, he was the Olin-Darling Research Fellow in the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and an equity partner at Holland & Hart LLP, where he was the chair of the firm's nationwide religious institutions and First Amendment practice group. He is a sought-after speaker on both writing and religion law to audiences across the United States, including foreign diplomats from countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America on behalf of the United States State Department. He has been interviewed by and quoted in various news outlets, including The Deseret News, Bloomberg, The Washington Times, Law360, Public Square Magazine, The Salt Lake Tribune, PBS, The Denver Business Journal, Law Week Colorado, CBN News, and many others. Before embarking on his legal and writing career, Steven graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif and served as an editor on the Michigan Law Review and the Michigan Journal of Race and Law. Steven also holds an M.F.A. in creative writing from Virginia Commonwealth University, where he served as the associate editor of the literary journal Blackbird. He completed his undergraduate studies, with university honors, at Brigham Young University. Originally from New Mexico, Steven lives in Austin with his wife and children. Anchor Verse: Ephesians 4: 11-16 Connect with Steven: Website: https://www.steventcollis.com ***This podcast is a proud member of the Spark Network! It is a network of Christian podcasts that cover so many different topics!  Head over to: https://www.sparkmedia.ventures/spark-network#/ to find more amazing podcasts!!***

What did the American Founders mean when they declared religious liberty to be an “inherent,” “natural” and “inalienable” right? Does the right to religious liberty provide religious exemptions from generally applicable laws? What is wrong with a state establishment of religion?In Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Vincent Phillip Muñoz addresses these questions and others, offering a novel interpretation of Founders' philosophy and constitutionalism of religious liberty. Drawing on early state constitutions, declarations of religious freedom, Founding-era debates, and the First Amendment's drafting record, the book documents and articulates the Founders' understanding of religious liberty as an inalienable natural right, uncovers what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, and constructs a natural rights jurisprudence of religious liberty, exploring and explaining how the Founders' principles would adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues. Contrary to what many might assume, Muñoz contends that adherence to the Founders would lead neither to consistently conservative nor consistently liberal results, but rather to a novel church-state jurisprudence that, in most cases, would return authority from the judiciary to the American people.Join us for a conversation of Professor Muñoz's new book, with Professor Muñoz himself and moderated by Michael McConnell, the director of Stanford Law School's Constitutional Law Center.Featuring:--Vincent Phillip Muñoz , Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School--Moderator: Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

Can you imagine the power of praying with your enemy? Today's guest, Steven T. Collis, reveals insights from the true story of enemy soldiers who rely upon one another to survive physically and spiritually during the Korean War. Steven T. Collis is the author of the nonfiction books The Immortals and Deep Conviction and the novels Praying with the Enemy and At Any Cost. He is a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law and founding faculty director of UT's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and related Law & Religion Clinic. Prior to his appointment at UT, he was the Olin-Darling Research Fellow in the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and an equity partner at Holland & Hart LLP, where he was the chair of the firm's nationwide religious institutions and First Amendment practice group. He is a sought-after speaker on both writing and religion law to audiences across the United States, including foreign diplomats from countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America on behalf of the United States State Department. He has been interviewed by and quoted in various news outlets, including The Deseret News, Bloomberg, The Washington Times, Law360, Public Square Magazine, The Salt Lake Tribune, PBS, The Denver Business Journal, Law Week Colorado, CBN News, and many others. We discuss the following key points found in the harrowing and inspiring tale of Jae Pil and Ward Millar's escape from prison camps in Korea: finding ways to connect and relate to others around us despite our differences how stressful circumstances can either test our faith or inspire us to place a priority on our spirituality the importance of cultivating deep roots to ground our beliefs rather than allow circumstances to dictate our spiritual values how respecting others and building bridges of communication does not require us to compromise our own beliefs demonstrating resilience in our faith discerning between political affiliations and spiritual beliefs so the culture does not influence shifts in theology key tenets of religious freedom how to fulfill divine purpose as a sophisticated believer dangers of adopting an "us v.s. them" mentality and how to overcome this mindset trap benefits of taking time to listen to the needs and concerns of those with opposing views parallels between the Good Samaritan parable and choices made by Jae Pil and Ward Millar to help one another escape Collis relates the transformation of a non-believing American soldier who becomes a man of unshakable faith. We discuss the story's earning experiences applicable to our modern lives. Collis points out the principle of losing one's self to find true identity and purpose in Christ as demonstrated in the novel. We explore the universal tendency to question God during crisis and how we often cannot recognize his actions on our behalf at the time of struggle.  Connect with Steven Collis and get a copy of his book, Praying with the Enemy at steventcollis.com.  Get Tina Yeager's FREE Upcycled Inspirational Flip Book template at upcycledbook.com and craft a gift of weekly inspirations for yourself, family members, or special people in your life.

Part 2 of 2 – For nearly 235 years, the U.S. Constitution has provided the foundation for America's economic prosperity, political stability, and democratic debate. This week, host Elisa and Harvey Rishikof welcome former Senator Russ Feingold and Peter Prindiville to discuss their new book, The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It. Together they discuss the latest controversial push to rewrite our Constitution, and how this problematic debate poses a threat to our national security. Senator Russ Feingold served as a United States Senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011, and is the President of the American Constitution Society: https://www.acslaw.org/person/russ-feingold/ Peter Prindiville is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University: https://law.stanford.edu/directory/peter-prindiville/ Harvey Rishikof is Senior Counselor to the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, and Director of Cybersecurity at the Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security at the University of Maryland: https://www.cyber.pitt.edu/people/harvey-rishikof References: Feingold, Russ, and Peter Prindiville. The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It. PublicAffairs, 2022. https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/russ-feingold/the-constitution-in-jeopardy/9781541701526/ Article I Section 10, U.S. Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-10/clause-1/ Article V, U.S. Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html The Virginia Plan, 1787: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/virginia-plan Register for the 32nd Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law Conference – The Past, Present and Future: Celebrating 60 Years of the Standing Committee on Law and National Security – November 17th–18th, 2022: https://web.cvent.com/event/587890d9-7f23-4662-af87-6f106dedfece/summary

Ali Velshi is joined by NBC News Senior International Correspondent Keir Simmons, Pulitzer Prize-winning National Political Reporter with The Washington Post Amy Gardner, Fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law Matthew Seligman, Author of ‘Permanent Distortion: How the Financial Markets Abandoned the Real Economy Forever' Nomi Prins, Senior Editor at Slate & Host of the ‘Amicus' podcast & Author of ‘LADY JUSTICE: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America' Dahlia Lithwick, Co-Director for Center for Vaccine Development at the Texas Children's Hospital & Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine Dr. Peter Hotez, Editor of The Maddow Blog & Producer for The Rachel Maddow Show & Author of ‘The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics' Steve Benen, Candidate for Louisiana Congress 1stDistrict Katie Darling, Editor-at-Large for The 19thErrin Haines, Politics Reporter at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Shannon McCaffrey, Trump's Fmr. Personal Attorney & Host of the ‘Mea Culpa' podcast & Author of ‘REVENGE: How Donald Trump Weaponized the Department of Justice Against His Critics' Michael Cohen

For nearly 235 years, the U.S. Constitution has provided the foundation for America's economic prosperity, political stability, and democratic debate. This week, host Elisa and Harvey Rishikoff welcome former Senator Russ Feingold and Peter Prindiville to discuss their new book, The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It. Together they discuss the latest controversial push to rewrite our Constitution, and how this problematic debate poses a threat to our national security. Senator Russ Feingold served as a United States Senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011, and is the President of the American Constitution Society: https://www.acslaw.org/person/russ-feingold/ Peter Prindiville is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University: https://law.stanford.edu/directory/peter-prindiville/ Harvey Rishikoff is Senior Counselor to the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, and Director of Cybersecurity at the Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security at the University of Maryland: https://www.cyber.pitt.edu/people/harvey-rishikof References: Feingold, Russ, and Peter Prindiville. The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It. PublicAffairs, 2022. https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/russ-feingold/the-constitution-in-jeopardy/9781541701526/ Article V, U.S. Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html The Virginia Plan, 1787: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/virginia-plan Register for the 32nd Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law Conference – The Past, Present and Future: Celebrating 60 Years of the Standing Committee on Law and National Security – November 17th–18th, 2022: https://web.cvent.com/event/587890d9-7f23-4662-af87-6f106dedfece/summary

Understanding The Electoral Count Act, as it's currently worded, requires a team of legal experts. So we got one! Sarah is joined by John Fortier, senior fellow at AEI, and Matthew Seligman, fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. Together they try to make sense of the law's history, explain the difference between the two reform bills coming up through the House and the Senate, and debate whether either one goes far enough to prevent a constitutional crisis in 2024.Show Notes:-Matthew in support of the Senate bill-What the Vice President can't do-John's guide to the electoral college-Matthew's 2024 risk assessment

 Hon. Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General, discusses the FBI affidavit that justified the search on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.Former Federal Judge, and current Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, Michael McConnell discusses 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case that pits a Colorado state anti-discrimination law meant to protect same-sex couples against free speech rights.Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler    Producer: Sara Livezey See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Hon. Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General, discusses the FBI affidavit that justified the search on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.Former Federal Judge, and current Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, Michael McConnell discusses 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case that pits a Colorado state anti-discrimination law meant to protect same-sex couples against free speech rights.Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler    Producer: Sara Livezey See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michael is joined by Matthew Seligman, a Fellow at Stanford Law School's Constitutional Law Center, as the two discuss the newly introduced Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 and its implications on America moving forward. Later, Michael answers questions and receives comments from callers on the matter. Original air date 22 July 2022.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. 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 constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, 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.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. 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 constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, 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.

On October 21, 2021, the Gray Center and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. This event, consisting of a daytime law symposium and evening lecture, brought together jurists, legal academics and practitioners, including many of the Justice's former clerks, where we discussed his jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. The second panel looked at the constitutional liberties of the first amendment, religion, race, and natural law, relating them to Justice Thomas's jurisprudence. It included a discussion featuring: Allison Jones Rushing, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Nicole Stelle Garnett, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School; Elbert Lin, Partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth and former Solicitor General of West Virginia, and Michael McConnell, Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. It was moderated by Adam Mortara, Lecturer in Law at University of Chicago Law School. This episode features Nicole Stelle Garnett, Elbert Lin, Michael W. McConnell, Adam Mortara, and The Honorable Allison Jones Rushing.

Panel II – Constitutional Liberties: First Amendment, Religion, Race, and Natural LawThe Honorable Allison Jones Rushing, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolMichael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionElbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth and former Solicitor General of West VirginiaModerator: Adam Mortara, Lecturer in Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolThe Heritage Foundation and the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at Antonin Scalia Law School will co-host a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. Bringing together jurists, legal academics, and practitioners, including many of his former clerks, we will discuss the Justice's jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. Join us for this all-day law symposium to reflect on the legacy of Justice Thomas thirty years into his service. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, host Kavya talks to Sufia Khalid, a legal fellow who works in the criminal defense divison of the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America (CCLMA). As a legal fellow, Khalid drafts documents for federal and appellate courts. In the past, she has worked closely with the CLCMA directors on cases of national security and terrorism. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/haniya-siddiqui/message

STEVEN T. COLLIS, an attorney, law professor, author, and the founding faculty director of Texas's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, joined us to discuss how his knowledge has influenced Supreme Court decisions, and to talk about all of his books, including his latest release, "The Immortals". FROM HIS WEBSITE: "Steven T. Collis is the author of the nonfiction books The Immortals and Deep Conviction and the novel At Any Cost. He is a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law and founding faculty director of UT's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and related Law & Religion Clinic. Prior to his appointment at UT, he was the Olin-Darling Research Fellow in the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and an equity partner at Holland & Hart LLP, where he was the chair of the firm's nationwide religious institutions and First Amendment practice group.  He is a sought-after speaker on both writing and religion law to audiences across the United States, including foreign diplomats from countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America on behalf of the United States State Department. He has been interviewed by and quoted in various news outlets, including The Deseret News, Bloomberg, The Washington Times, Law360, Public Square Magazine, The Salt Lake Tribune, PBS, The Denver Business Journal, Law Week Colorado, CBN News, and others.​" https://www.steventcollis.com

STEVEN T. COLLIS, an attorney, law professor, author, and the founding faculty director of Texas's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, joined us to discuss how his knowledge has influenced Supreme Court decisions, and to talk about all of his books, including his latest release, "The Immortals". FROM HIS WEBSITE: "Steven T. Collis is the author of the nonfiction books The Immortals and Deep Conviction and the novel At Any Cost. He is a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law and founding faculty director of UT's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and related Law & Religion Clinic. Prior to his appointment at UT, he was the Olin-Darling Research Fellow in the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and an equity partner at Holland & Hart LLP, where he was the chair of the firm's nationwide religious institutions and First Amendment practice group.  He is a sought-after speaker on both writing and religion law to audiences across the United States, including foreign diplomats from countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America on behalf of the United States State Department. He has been interviewed by and quoted in various news outlets, including The Deseret News, Bloomberg, The Washington Times, Law360, Public Square Magazine, The Salt Lake Tribune, PBS, The Denver Business Journal, Law Week Colorado, CBN News, and others.​" https://www.steventcollis.com

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj.

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written an examination of the power that the president has in the U.S. constitutional system. The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (Princeton UP, 2020) presents a unique analysis of the powers that were allocated to the executive in Article II of the Constitution, as well as an exploration of the origin of many of the executive powers that are outlined in the Constitution but allocated to other branches of government within the new constitutional system. Thus, while McConnell's focus is on the executive in the American constitutional system, the framing of this focus is in delineating the prerogative powers that Blackstone had noted belong to the monarch or the individual head of state, but that the Founders in 1787 split up. The argument in the book also clarifies the structure of Article II, explaining in important detail the sections of Article II and how they are connected to each other. McConnell's deep dive into the discussions not only in Philadelphia in 1787, but also in the state ratifying conventions and among the different founders provide the historical context for the explicit and implied powers distributed throughout the Constitution. McConnell's historical analysis pays particular attention to the committees that were established during the Constitutional Convention, like the Committee on Detail, that had to flesh out how the powers that were being invested in the document would manifest in operation. Thus, The President Who Would Not Be King is an historical examination of the competing ideas that were part of the conversation that ultimately became the U.S. Constitution.  But McConnell does not stop at the founding period. He provides much more contemporary examples and case studies of some of the tensions around these prerogative powers that were not all given to the president in Article II. This takes up Justice Robert Jackson's important decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer in terms of how that decision shaped expectations around executive use of power and authority, and has also positioned those expectations within, intentionally or not, our highly partisan political environment. McConnell's work provides a path to understanding constitutional meaning from before the constitution itself was written, which is distinct from constitutional theories like originalism. The President Who Would Not Be King also wrestles with the Founders' ideas around the complexity of separation of powers, given the executive powers that Congress holds and can use, as well as the executive powers vested in the presidency. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Three of the nation's leading scholars on constitutional law and executive power — Michael McConnell, Sai Prakash, and John Yoo — join us to discuss the true extent of executive power, and their new books on the subject.The most recent book, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution by Prof. McConnell, was reviewed in the pages of the Federalist Society Review by John Yoo. Before that, Profs. Prakash and Yoo joined the Federalist Society's Teleforum to debate the Constitution's grant of presidential power and whether (or to what extent) President Trump upheld that grant. The discussion continues with the new voice of former federal judge and distinguished originalist scholar Michael McConnell.Featuring:-- Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution-- Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution-- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Today, we're delighted to have as our guest, Michael McConnell. If you've been following the news at all lately, you probably know Michael is co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, which last week published its decision in the case involving President Trump's access to Facebook following the January 6th riot at the Capitol. Michael is also the Richard and Francis Mallory Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to 2009, he served as Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Michael has previously held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has published widely in the fields of constitutional law theory, has argued 15 cases in the US Supreme Court and served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and DC Circuit Court Judge J. Skelly Wright. He has been in an Assistant General Counsel of the OMD, where I had the pleasure of working with him on regulatory reform issues, and a member of the president's Intelligence Oversight Board.

Wednesday, March 31, 2021 Hoover Institution, Stanford University Senator Mike Lee in conversation with Michael McConnell on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:00 PM ET. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Senator Mike Lee was elected in 2010 as Utah's 16th Senator. He has spent his career defending the basic liberties of all Americans and advocating for our founding constitutional principles. Senator Lee acquired a deep respect for the Constitution early in life while watching his father, Rex Lee, serve as the Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan. He attended most of his father's arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, giving him a unique understanding of government up close. Lee graduated from Brigham Young University Law School in 1997 and went on to serve as law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, and then with future Supreme Court Justice Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Michael McConnell is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School.   During his many years of government service, McConnell served as a circuit judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and as an assistant to Solicitor General Rex Lee at the Department of Justice. Over his career he has argued fifteen cases in the U.S Supreme Court. His teaching focuses on constitutional law, constitutional history, the First Amendment, and interpretive theory. His most recent book is The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution published in November 2020; his next book will be released in 2021 the Establishment of Religion: Neutrality, Accommodation, and Separation.   For more information go to: https://www.hoover.org/publications/capital-conversations 

With a stack of executive orders piled on his desk, President Biden wasted no time. According to Newsweek, “President Biden signed more executive orders in the first 12 days of his presidency than the combined number issued by Donald Trump and Barack Obama for the same point in their tenures.” From revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and reversing the travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries, to requiring mask wearing and preventing and combating discrimination, President Biden covered and reversed a wide range of policies with the stroke of a pen. So what is the effect of these orders under the newly elected Biden? And what questions arise as to their legality and constitutionality? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Dr. Kevin G. Vance from the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Department of Political Science, as they discuss President Biden's executive orders, their impact, their constitutionality, the ramifications of the immediate reversal of the prior president’s actions, and what’s to come from this new administration. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

With a stack of executive orders piled on his desk, President Biden wasted no time. According to Newsweek, “President Biden signed more executive orders in the first 12 days of his presidency than the combined number issued by Donald Trump and Barack Obama for the same point in their tenures.” From revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and reversing the travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries, to requiring mask wearing and preventing and combating discrimination, President Biden covered and reversed a wide range of policies with the stroke of a pen. So what is the effect of these orders under the newly elected Biden? And what questions arise as to their legality and constitutionality? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Dr. Kevin G. Vance from the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Department of Political Science, as they discuss President Biden's executive orders, their impact, their constitutionality, the ramifications of the immediate reversal of the prior president’s actions, and what’s to come from this new administration. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

Jack Goldsmith sat down with Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of the new book, "The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution." They discussed McConnell's textual historical approach to interpreting presidential power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the many novel elements of executive power embodied in Article II and the proper understanding of Article II's Vesting Clause. They also talked about contemporary implications of his reading of Article II for war powers, the unitary executive and late impeachments.

Michael McConnell And John Yoo: The ACB Nomination: Is A 6-3 Court Supremely Conservative? | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefing Thursday, October 22, 2020 Hoover Institution The Hoover Institution presents an online virtual briefing series on pressing policy issues, including health care, the economy, democratic governance, and national security. Briefings will include thoughtful and informed analysis from our top scholars. ABOUT THE FELLOWS Michael McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. John Yoo is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California–Berkeley School of Law, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. To receive notifications about upcoming briefings, please sign up by clicking here: http://eepurl.com/gXjSSb 

Since 2017, President Trump has issued 181 executive orders. Recently, the president has come under fire for issuing executive orders to provide economic relief to Americans during the pandemic, bypassing congress and its traditional "power of the purse". So what are these executive orders? Are they constitutional, and will the president see legal challenges? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Kimberly Wehle from the University of Baltimore School of Law and professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, to discuss the use of executive orders by the president and, specifically, the constitutionality of President Trump's recent pandemic motivated executive orders. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception. Mentioned in this Podcast: How to Read the Constitution--and Why  What You Need to Know about Voting—and Why The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution Establishment of Religion: Neutrality, Accommodation, and Separation

Since 2017, President Trump has issued 181 executive orders. Recently, the president has come under fire for issuing executive orders to provide economic relief to Americans during the pandemic, bypassing congress and its traditional "power of the purse". So what are these executive orders? Are they constitutional, and will the president see legal challenges? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Kimberly Wehle from the University of Baltimore School of Law and professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, to discuss the use of executive orders by the president and, specifically, the constitutionality of President Trump's recent pandemic motivated executive orders. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception. Mentioned in this Podcast: How to Read the Constitution--and Why What You Need to Know about Voting—and Why The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution Establishment of Religion: Neutrality, Accommodation, and Separation

Facebook recently announced the first 20 members of its new Oversight Board. The role of the board is to guide Facebook through decisions on what controversial content should be allowed to stay up or be deleted. Michael McConnell, professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a co-chair of Facebook’s Oversight Board, joins the podcast to discuss what the institution of the board may mean for conservatives and how he plans to work alongside the liberal members of the group. We also discuss these stories: President Trump is critical of Obama administration officials who unmasked his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn.Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina is stepping down from his chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee due to his stock sales being investigated. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticizes Democrats’ $3 trillion coronavirus package. Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawHon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawHon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society

RESOLVED: The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society held the twelfth annual Rosenkranz Debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The participants discussed whether the Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

RESOLVED: The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society held the twelfth annual Rosenkranz Debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The participants discussed whether the Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

Mark Kende is a Professor of Law at Drake Law School, the James Madison Chair of Constitutional Law, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Drake. Listen on Apple Podcasts and YouTube; Music credit: Kammerton

Mark Kende is a Professor of Law at Drake Law School, the James Madison Chair of Constitutional Law, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Drake. Listen on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, YouTube; Music credit: Kammerton

Awaiting Congress on the day after Labor Day: the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Michael McConnell, a Hoover Institution senior fellow, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a former a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, takes us through the confirmation process and Kavanaugh’s immediate impact on the High Court. Did you like the show? Please rate, review, and subscribe!

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "The First Amendment on Campus with guest Michael McConnell" Law professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford, Michael McConnell talks about the First Amendment and where it begins and ends on different types of college campuses. Originally aired on SiriusXM on May 26, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "The First Amendment on Campus with guest Michael McConnell" Law professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford, Michael McConnell talks about the First Amendment and where it begins and ends on different types of college campuses. Originally aired on SiriusXM on May 26, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

Charles Swift is director of the Dallas-based Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America. He led the defense team in the month-long Orlando trial of Noor Salman, the widow of Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen. Swift has an enviable record of success in securing justice for unpopular clients. As a Navy judge advocate general, Swift was a member of the defense bar at Guantánamo Bay, where his advocacy won freedom for a Yemeni detainee in a precedent-setting Supreme Court ruling. Following the Pulse shooting, Salman was charged with aiding and abetting, and obstruction of justice. In his conversation about the trial with Peter B. Collins, Swift details major misconduct by the FBI and prosecutors, who introduced into the record Salman's “confession” which they knew was riddled with falsehoods. Swift says that the prosecution strategy was to put Mateen on trial posthumously, in the effort to prove that his wife helped him scope out targets for his deadly intentions. But this led to major revisions in the “official” narrative: contrary to reports published immediately after the shooting, Mateen was never a patron of Pulse; in fact, he had never been to that location until the night of June 12, 2016. Swift explains how Salman's cell phone data cast doubt on the government's claim that she was at the club; this was one of many false claims included in the “confession” produced after hours of interrogation that the prosecution submitted at trial. Swift was able to disprove almost half of the statements in the prosecution document. Just as the defense was about to rest, prosecutors notified the Swift team that Seddique Khan, father of the shooter, had been a paid FBI informant for over 11 years. Swift says that his investigation and trial tactics would've been different if the government had properly shared this information, and that it's a likely “Brady” violation. (From Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland: “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.”) Swift deplores the obvious double standard: no penalties for egregious government misconduct, but when the defense was delayed in delivering a psychological evaluation of Salman, it faced sanctions from the court.

What role for the executive was envisioned by the Framers and Founding generation? How did the Founding generation understand the Executive’s role? How did the likely first President, George Washington shape their views? Has the role of the Executive changed?Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor, Co-Director, Leitner Center for International Law and Justice, Fordham University School of LawProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law and Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center, University of California, Berkeley Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Judge Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

What role for the executive was envisioned by the Framers and Founding generation? How did the Founding generation understand the Executive’s role? How did the likely first President, George Washington shape their views? Has the role of the Executive changed?Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor, Co-Director, Leitner Center for International Law and Justice, Fordham University School of LawProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law and Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center, University of California, Berkeley Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Judge Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Free speech on college campuses has been under attack in recent years, increasingly from students who have protested speakers whom they disagree with politically. These protests have succeeded in both cancelling events and creating disturbances through blockades, shouts, and even violence as was the case at Middlebury College. What responsibilities do universities hold to protect a climate that encourages the open and respectful exchange of ideas? Should “hate speech” be protected or are special protections needed to protect students from “offensive” discourse? What do universities owe students and speakers to protect their personal safety if protests break out?Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, Director of Litigation, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law GroupProfessor Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Hon. Sandra Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Joshua McDaniel, Horvitz & Levy LLP

Free speech on college campuses has been under attack in recent years, increasingly from students who have protested speakers whom they disagree with politically. These protests have succeeded in both cancelling events and creating disturbances through blockades, shouts, and even violence as was the case at Middlebury College. What responsibilities do universities hold to protect a climate that encourages the open and respectful exchange of ideas? Should “hate speech” be protected or are special protections needed to protect students from “offensive” discourse? What do universities owe students and speakers to protect their personal safety if protests break out?Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, Director of Litigation, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law GroupProfessor Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Hon. Sandra Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Joshua McDaniel, Horvitz & Levy LLP

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that the earth belongs to the living. His letter to James Madison is often quoted for the proposition that we should not be bound to the 'dead hand of the past', suggesting that the Constitution should instead be interpreted as a living, breathing document. Less well-known is Madison's response, in which he said the improvements made by the dead - including the US Constitution - form a debt against the living, who benefit from them. In this illuminating book, Ilan Wurman introduces Madison's concept of originalism to a new generation and shows how it has shaped the US Supreme Court in ways that are expected to continue following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the theory's leading proponents.Prof. McConnell will join author Ilan Wurman to discuss A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism.Featuring:Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolIlan Wurman, Author, A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism; Nonresident Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that the earth belongs to the living. His letter to James Madison is often quoted for the proposition that we should not be bound to the 'dead hand of the past', suggesting that the Constitution should instead be interpreted as a living, breathing document. Less well-known is Madison's response, in which he said the improvements made by the dead - including the US Constitution - form a debt against the living, who benefit from them. In this illuminating book, Ilan Wurman introduces Madison's concept of originalism to a new generation and shows how it has shaped the US Supreme Court in ways that are expected to continue following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the theory's leading proponents.Prof. McConnell will join author Ilan Wurman to discuss A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism.Featuring:Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolIlan Wurman, Author, A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism; Nonresident Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

How and when should Christians engage, as Christians, in the public square? When it is appropriate to use specifically religious arguments on questions of public policy? What is the effect on the church? Professor McConnell will offer very tentative thoughts about how to negotiate these difficult questions.Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to the summer of 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. McConnell has held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah, and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has published widely in the fields of constitutional law and theory, especially church and state, equal protection, and the founding. In the past decade, his work has been cited in opinions of the Supreme Court second most often of any legal scholar. He is co-editor of three books: Religion and the Law, Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, and The Constitution of the United States. McConnell has argued fifteen cases in the Supreme Court. He served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and is Of Counsel to the appellate practice of Kirkland & Ellis.

How much leeway do agencies have in implementing federal law? What is the source of this leeway? In whom is it vested? What is the remedy for exceeding it? What are the consequences of exceeding it?Administrative agencies are comprised of numerous components and employ tens of thousands of individuals with different ideas about what the law requires and what policies best serve the public interest. Individually or collectively, agency officials may disagree with all or parts of congressionally-enacted laws, with regulations properly adopted by prior administrations, or with the regulatory and enforcement priorities of politically-appointed agency leaders. They may even question the legitimacy of those political appointments. Government resources are finite: both enforcement priorities and resource allocation decisions are primarily within the authority of the Executive Branch. Does permitting agency personnel, whether high ranking or low, to decide to selectively enforce or not enforce laws on the basis of their policy preferences or perceptions of legitimacy turn our government away from the rule of law and toward the rule of man? What can agency personnel do when their agency refuses to administer laws for which it is responsible, or enforces laws they consider unlawful or ill advised? What recourse do Congress or the courts have if the Executive Branch will not follow their commands?Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School and Senior Fellow, Hoover InstituteMr. Stuart S. Taylor Jr., Contributing Editor, National JournalProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Michael Uhlmann, Professor of Government, Claremont Graduate UniversityModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

How much leeway do agencies have in implementing federal law? What is the source of this leeway? In whom is it vested? What is the remedy for exceeding it? What are the consequences of exceeding it?Administrative agencies are comprised of numerous components and employ tens of thousands of individuals with different ideas about what the law requires and what policies best serve the public interest. Individually or collectively, agency officials may disagree with all or parts of congressionally-enacted laws, with regulations properly adopted by prior administrations, or with the regulatory and enforcement priorities of politically-appointed agency leaders. They may even question the legitimacy of those political appointments. Government resources are finite: both enforcement priorities and resource allocation decisions are primarily within the authority of the Executive Branch. Does permitting agency personnel, whether high ranking or low, to decide to selectively enforce or not enforce laws on the basis of their policy preferences or perceptions of legitimacy turn our government away from the rule of law and toward the rule of man? What can agency personnel do when their agency refuses to administer laws for which it is responsible, or enforces laws they consider unlawful or ill advised? What recourse do Congress or the courts have if the Executive Branch will not follow their commands?Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School and Senior Fellow, Hoover InstituteMr. Stuart S. Taylor Jr., Contributing Editor, National JournalProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Michael Uhlmann, Professor of Government, Claremont Graduate UniversityModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Many secularists argue that the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion is a guarantee of a purely secular public square, requiring the exclusion of religious voices and institutions. Some religious people respond in kind, by opposing the separation between church and state. Professor McConnell will argue that both are wrong. Church-state separation originated in Protestant Christian teaching, was promoted by the most evangelical sects in America at the founding, and rests on Christian theological principles. Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to the summer of 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. McConnell has held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah, and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has published widely in the fields of constitutional law and theory, especially church and state, equal protection, and the founding. In the past decade, his work has been cited in opinions of the Supreme Court second most often of any legal scholar. He is co-editor of three books: Religion and the Law, Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, and The Constitution of the United States. McConnell has argued fifteen cases in the Supreme Court. He served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and is Of Counsel to the appellate practice of Kirkland & Ellis.

Everybody knows about the Enlightenment, but very few know how the Reformation contributed to the development of the ideas of freedom of thought, conscience, speech, and worship. How did we move from Romans 13 to "God Alone Is Lord of the Conscience"?Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to the summer of 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. McConnell has held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah, and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has published widely in the fields of constitutional law and theory, especially church and state, equal protection, and the founding. In the past decade, his work has been cited in opinions of the Supreme Court second most often of any legal scholar. He is co-editor of three books: Religion and the Law, Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, and The Constitution of the United States. McConnell has argued fifteen cases in the Supreme Court. He served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and is Of Counsel to the appellate practice of Kirkland & Ellis.

All across America, it seems that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under assault. Has this country lost its belief in civil liberty, or civility in general? Where does the Supreme Court stand in all of this?Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to the summer of 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. McConnell has held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah, and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has published widely in the fields of constitutional law and theory, especially church and state, equal protection, and the founding. In the past decade, his work has been cited in opinions of the Supreme Court second most often of any legal scholar. He is co-editor of three books: Religion and the Law, Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, and The Constitution of the United States. McConnell has argued fifteen cases in the Supreme Court. He served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and is Of Counsel to the appellate practice of Kirkland & Ellis.

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast I talk with Tracy A. Thomas about her book Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law (New York University Press, 2016). Professor Thomas is the John F. Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at the University of Akron School of Law. She is also editor of the Gender and the Law Prof Blog. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Universities have long been thought of, and cherished, as places for the free exchange of ideas. This idea has, however, come under pressure. Student groups have now routinely exercised pressure to keep people who they disagree with off campus. And safe spaces and trigger warnings—which limit speech that some have deemed offensive—have become regular features at universities across the nation. -- Many see the climate of shouting-down or protesting the expression of others' viewpoints as the symbolic beginning of an era limiting the freedom of speech on college campuses. While surveys seem to show a majority of students disagree with universities curtailing speech, even when it is offensive, vocal minorities with opposing views have been the ones capturing news headlines and the attention of the public at large. -- With the accessibility to speech provided by the internet and viral sharing of information, expression and speech spread with more ease than ever, but this same technology creates opportunities for back-lash on social media and gives a larger stage to those who would threaten the free market of ideas at our nation's universities. -- The First Amendment protects principles which have always required vigilance to maintain, and today's world makes no exception. This panel will explore how these developments have affected intellectual discourse on campus and if they are conducive to a meaningful learning experience at our universities. -- 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. Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Prof. Phillip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Suzanne Goldberg, Executive Vice President for University Life, Columbia University; Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law; Director, Constitutional Law Center; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

The final Showcase panel examines Justice Scalia's transformation of five very important areas of Supreme Court doctrine. First, Justice Scalia transformed freedom of expression doctrine by entrenching a rule of viewpoint neutrality in place of different tests for different kinds of speech. In the five to four flag burning cases, Justice Scalia teamed up with Justices Brennan and Marshall to protect political speech. In the five to four decision in Citizens United he did the same thing with a different block of Justices. In another five to four opinion, Justice Scalia recognized constitutional protection for hate speech in RAV v. City of St. Paul. He joined a summary affirmance of a Seventh Circuit opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook banning Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography laws. Second, Justice Scalia revolutionized the law of the religion clauses by largely burying the Lemon test and leading the Supreme Court in affirming the constitutionality of education vouchers for religious schools. Third, Justice Scalia revolutionized the Second Amendment by finding that it protected an individual's right to bear arms to defend himself, and he was very libertarian and protective of criminal defendants' rights in his criminal procedure jurisprudence. Fourth, Justice Scalia surprised some observers with his criminal law and procedure opinions on searches, the Confrontation Clause, and more. Finally, Justice Scalia played what some describe as a unique role in standing, including in his opinion in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court; Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President, The Federalist Society.