Podcast appearances and mentions of evan bernick

Social media regulation is a hot topic under the 1st Amendment. Evan Bernick, Assistant Professor at the NIU College of Law, joins the Steve Cochran Show to talk about this new area of law, regulations, and if posting on socials really counts as freedom of speech. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Professors Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick talked about their book, The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment. They argued that the 14th Amendment, which gave the federal judiciary and Congress new powers over the states, has been misinterpreted by conservative and liberal judges alike since its adoption in 1868. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professors Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick talked about their book, The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment. They argued that the 14th Amendment, which gave the federal judiciary and Congress new powers over the states, has been misinterpreted by conservative and liberal judges alike since its adoption in 1868. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—join for an in-depth comparative look at the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. We explore originalism's modern history and application by current members of the Roberts Court through the examples of recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Moore v. Harper (2023) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023) Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) National Constitution Center, "Second Amendment," Interactive Constitution Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Counterman v. Colorado (2023)  John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick, "The Letter and the Spirit: A Unified Theory of Originalism," Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works     Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the 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. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

Evan Bernick, Associate Professor of Law, Northern Illinois University, joins John Williams to talk about why he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action.

Evan Bernick, Associate Professor of Law, Northern Illinois University, joins John Williams to talk about why he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action.

Evan Bernick, Associate Professor of Law, Northern Illinois University, joins John Williams to talk about why he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action.

Does "Progressive Originalism" exist? And what does it mean? Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick recently published an extensive history of the 14th Amendment that makes the case for "progressive originalism." This ties into the "myths of American history." https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

Following the arrest of an Ohio man for making a parody account of his local police force, The Onion has filed an amicus brief arguing for the protected nature of satirical speech. NIU assistant law professor Evan Bernick joins Steve and Jane to talk about what the brief means, whether or not the court will hear the case, and the constitutional argument for protecting jokes, even if they're in bad taste.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the Constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. Yet, according to Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick in their new book The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit, the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws.On today's episode, they join us to answer questions as simple as; what is the fourteenth amendment, and why is it possibly one of our most important? As well as more complex ones, including; does the equal protection clause guarantee positive rights? And what can libertarians learn from the anti-slavery Republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The past few years have witnessed a flurry of new scholarship related to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its associated citizenship declarations. Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University, is the co-author with Randy Barnett of “The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter […]

The past few years have witnessed a flurry of new scholarship related to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its associated citizenship declarations. Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University, is the co-author with Randy Barnett of "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit." Christopher Green, a professor at the University of Mississippi, is the author of "Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause," as well as a review of Evan's book, to which he and Barnett have responded. This historical debate is not merely of academic interest, however. If the Supreme Court were to view the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in a new light, what would the implications be for labor law?Featuring: -- Professor Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University-- Professor Christopher R. Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law

Evan Bernick, assistant professor at the Northern Illinois University College of Law, joins Lisa Dent on Chicago’s Afternoon News to explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling that a former Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field after games. Follow Your Favorite Chicago’s Afternoon News Personalities on Twitter:Follow […]

Professor Evan Bernick stops by Supreme Myths to talk abortion, originalism, common-good constitutionalism, and Congress' powers under the 14th Amendment.

Politico's publication of a leaked draft of the Dobbs decision has turned the Internet upside-down, with rampant speculation about who the leaker was, whether the decision is final, and what will happen next if early-term abortion once again becomes a policy issue for states to decide rather than a right upheld by the Supreme Court.I find the details of the leak uninteresting (except insofar as it impacts the legitimacy of the court). I am much more interested in how the five Justices voting in the majority arrived at their tentative opinion. Evan Bernick, a law professor at North Illinois University's College of Law, is an expert on Originalism the judicial philosophy on which the Dobbs decision is ostensibly based. Bernick joined me to dissent from this assumption. Instead, he argues, Alito's decision stems from a judicial philosophy that seeks to “stop the Court from recognizing unenumerated rights.” Bernick believes in a more activistic judiciary when it comes to defending individual rights, as we discussed [the last time he was on my show.We discussed the constitutional considerations behind both the Roe decision and the *Dobbs* reversal of an almost 50-year-old precedent. I'll also ask Evan how the policy issue is likely to play out in the states, with progressive states becoming destinations for women seeking abortions.Follow Evan on Twitter, and check out his book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, co-authored with Randy Barnett.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block new congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania from going into effect. Both states' maps had been redrawn by state courts, overriding maps that had been enacted by the states' Republican legislatures. This means that the 2022 congressional elections in both states will proceed using the court-drawn maps. Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, four of the justices indicated they're ready to address the doctrine at the heart of the cases: the independent state legislature theory. To unpack all that's at stake—and explain what that theory is and what effect, if implemented, it could have on the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures in regulating elections—Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with two constitutional law experts: Vikram Amar, dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at Illinois College of Law and co-author of Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials; and Evan Bernick, assistant professor at the Northern Illinois University College of Law and co-author of The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block new congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania from going into effect. Both states' maps had been redrawn by state courts, overriding maps that had been enacted by the states' Republican legislatures. This means that the 2022 congressional elections in both states will proceed using the court-drawn maps. Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, four of the justices indicated they're ready to address the doctrine at the heart of the cases: the independent state legislature theory. To unpack all that's at stake—and explain what that theory is and what effect, if implemented, it could have on the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures in regulating elections—Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with two constitutional law experts: Vikram Amar, dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at Illinois College of Law and co-author of Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials; and Evan Bernick, assistant professor at the Northern Illinois University College of Law and co-author of The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. 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

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lucretia added to her intrepid legend by venturing into the asylum at Berkeley this week to record this episode in person with Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett about his new book (co-authored with Evan Bernick), The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. To remind listeners, Barnett argued the Gonzalez v. Raich […]

Lucretia added to her intrepid legend by venturing into the asylum at Berkeley this week to record this episode in person with Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett about his new book (co-authored with Evan Bernick), The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. To remind listeners, Barnett argued the Gonzalez v. Raich case that challenged the unlimited reach of the Commerce Clause, and was one of the principal architects of NFIB v. Sebelius that challenged Obamacare back in 2012. Before getting into the main topic of the 14th Amendment, we open with some intellectual history, as Prof. Barnett began his legal career as a prosecutor, and taught contracts in law school before being drawn into constitutional law mid-career. Since then he has published a series of highly regarded books that have helped revitalize constitutional originalism. From there we venture into some of the history of the 14th Amendment, as well as Prof. Barnett’s thorough tour in the book of contemporary understandings—and misunderstandings—of this crucial amendment. His reconstruction of this Reconstruction Era amendment deserves to take its place as one of the pre-eminent works on this subject. (Bonus: he also supplied the trademark Ricochet sign off at the very end of the recording, so listen through the exit music for a treat.) Oh, I almost forgot: we recorded in John Yoo’s office at Berkeley Law, and he loitered in the background, mostly heckling and pouring Maker’s Mark in our coffee. The things we put up with.

Lucretia added to her intrepid legend by venturing into the asylum at Berkeley this week to record this episode in person with Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett about his new book (co-authored with Evan Bernick), The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. To remind listeners, Barnett argued the Gonzalez v. Raich case that challenged the unlimited reach of the... Source

The post-Civil War change to the Constitution is the topic of law professors Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick's book, "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." They're interviewed by Yale Law professor John Witt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's our 200th episode! We're taking this second century as an excuse to explore where Short Circuit came from and what it's done, both the podcast and the newsletter. We start things off at the very beginning with Short Circuit's editor and the podcast's original host John Ross. Then it's a blast-from-the-past with Clark Neily and Evan Bernick. We close things off with guest host Paul Sherman and Short Circuit Live host Anya Bidwell. You've heard how Spiderman and Batman came to be, but do you know what traumatic event led to Short Circuit? Ok, there's no radiation or mugging, but you will learn how reading way too many qualified immunity opinions can radicalize your worldview. Enjoy! Also, a quick update to the episode. None of us really remembered where the idea for the podcast actually came from, but further deep (and actual) research has revealed it was our sound engineer and producer Mark. Thank you! https://ij.org/staff/jross/ https://www.cato.org/people/clark-neily https://www.niu.edu/law/about/directory/bernick.shtml https://ij.org/staff/psherman/ https://ij.org/staff/anya-bidwell/ https://ij.org/staff/asanders/

On this episode, I talk to Northern Illinois University College of Law professor Evan Bernick about the unprecedented charges against the parents of the 15-year-old who allegedly murdered 4 of his classmates in Michigan late last month. We discuss his recent piece in The Washington Post warning of the dangers of the case. Bernick is skeptical of the logic being employed by prosecutors to charge the parents with negligent manslaughter in an attempt to hold them responsible for their son's criminal acts. He argues the prosecution could set a troubling new precedent that will be used against vulnerable populations once this high-profile case fades from the headlines. He said expansions of how broadly serious criminal offenses are interpreted tend to lead to an increase in prosecutions of minorities. We discuss how that principle often applies to gun laws but is rarely given the same level of discussion. We also look at how the same question is being considered in the Supreme Court's gun-carry case. At the same time, we debate the culpability of the parents involved in the Michigan school shooting and what kind of consequences they should face. Prosecutors allege the pair were informed about their son's notes and drawings indicating he was about to carry out his attack on the very day it happened but did nothing to intervene. If the parents shouldn't be charged for the killings themselves despite allegedly providing access to the firearm and doing nothing to respond to the warning signs, what should be done instead? Are safe storage laws a good alternative as Bernick suggests? Plus, contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover the latest developments on permitless carry in Florida as well as Beto O'Rourke's faltering poll numbers in the Texas gubernatorial race. Special Guest: Evan Bernick.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," is one of the most adjudicated amendments. The 1868 adoption of it has led to numerous Supreme Court cases and interpretations. Professors Randy Barnett (Georgetown University Law Center) and Evan Bernick (Northern Illinois University College of Law) argue in their book "The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment" that the amendment, which gave the federal judiciary and Congress new powers over the states, has been misinterpreted by conservative and liberal judges alike. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fourteenth Amendment Confrontation. Evan Bernick from Northern Illinois University challenges the originalist arguments made by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington and argues that an originalist perspective on the clause must take into account understandings of Confrontation at the time of the Reconstruction amendments.

In this episode, Evan Bernick, Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, discusses his article "Eliminating Constitutional Law," which will be published in the South Dakota Law Review. Bernick begins by briefly describing the different ways legal theorists talk about the concept of law and how they are different. He observes that some legal theorists have argued that the law requires us to adopt particular methodologies of constitutional interpretation, and explains why he thinks they are wrong. He argues that we should eliminate reliance on legalism from constitutional decisionmaking, and reflects on what that would mean. Bernick is on Twitter at @evanbernick.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On a special Short Circuit, professors Christopher Green and Evan Bernick join your host Anthony Sanders to examine one of the great questions of the Fourteenth Amendment: When courts apply the Bill of Rights to the States, should they give those provisions the meaning they had when they were adopted, in 1791, or how they were understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, in 1868? The question is important, argue our guests, both methodologically and practically. Among other things, using the meaning the Bill of Rights had in 1868 might better fulfill the promise of Reconstruction, which was largely lost when the Supreme Court buried much of the Fourteenth Amendment in the years following the Civil War. And speaking of Reconstruction, click here to see our 150th anniversary celebration of Section 1983, that we held earlier this week! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlrAK4OXvPQ Torres v. Madrid, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf McDonald v. City of Chicago, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf Graham v. Connor, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/ Ramos v. Louisiana, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf Christopher Green, https://law.olemiss.edu/faculty-directory/christopher-green/ Evan Bernick, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2547295 Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org