POPULARITY
16 episodes with fowler school
11 episodes with fowler school
8 episodes with fowler school
2 episodes with fowler school
2 episodes with fowler school
2 episodes with fowler school
2 episodes with fowler school
2 episodes with fowler school
Unlock the secrets to thriving in the future job market with insights from Ginger Baxter, Assistant Dean at the Argyros College of Business and Economics, and Tom Piechota, Dean of the Fowler School of Engineering at Chapman University. Discover why the days of traditional degrees ruling the job market are fading and how a blend of foundational education with industry-specific skills is the key to unlocking career opportunities. Learn about the growing importance of micro-credentials and practical experience, and how students can create a standout resume through research and professional societies.Explore the critical skills that go beyond technical knowledge, such as teamwork, leadership, and communication, which are essential for professional success. Our guests dive into the competitive nature of internships and the significant role real-world experiences play in preparing students for the workforce. They also address the generational gaps in professionalism and the social skill challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting strategies institutions are employing to bridge these gaps.From tackling grand challenges with AI to mastering crisis management through VR simulations, we cover the innovative methods being used to prepare students for a tech-driven world. Listen as we discuss the balance between vocational training and comprehensive education, the evolving roles of specialists and generalists, and the impact of high turnover rates in early careers. This episode is packed with valuable insights on how to equip the next generation with the skills needed to succeed in an ever-changing professional landscape.Support Our WorkThe Center for Demographics and Policy focuses on research and analysis of global, national, and regional demographic trends and explores policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time. It involves Chapman students in demographic research under the supervision of the Center's senior staff.Students work with the Center's director and engage in research that will serve them well as they look to develop their careers in business, the social sciences, and the arts. Students also have access to our advisory board, which includes distinguished Chapman faculty and major demographic scholars from across the country and the world.For additional information, please contact Mahnaz Asghari, Associate Director for the Center for Demographics and Policy, at (714) 744-7635 or asghari@chapman.edu.Follow us on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-feudal-future-podcast/Tweet thoughts: @joelkotkin, @mtoplansky, #FeudalFuture #BeyondFeudalismLearn more about Joel's book 'The Coming of Neo-Feudalism': https://amzn.to/3a1VV87Sign Up For News & Alerts: http://joelkotkin.com/#subscribeThis show is presented by the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, which focuses on research and analysis of global, national and regional demographic trends and explores policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time.
Nobel Prize-winning economist explains how a 300 y/o model predicted Uber, with Vernon Smith, Nobel Prize-winning Economist Spontaneous order means the "spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos," and it's something we see daily in both our social and economic lives. Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith believes that we see spontaneous order much more often in our everyday social and economic life than we know - such as in the form of apps like Uber and Lyft. The founders of both ride-share platforms understood that one algorithm could digitally encompass the thousands of cab companies, taxi drivers, and passengers, creating a streamlined process out of something that once seemed so complex, dispersed, and chaotic. Today, these customary transportation apps not only make our lives simple and organized but modern-day spontaneous order in action. This video was created in partnership with the Institute for Humane Studies. --------------------------------------------------------------- About Vernon Smith: Vernon L. Smith was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002 for his groundbreaking work in experimental economics. Dr. Smith is a distinguished fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, has joint appointments with the Argyros School of Business and Economics and the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University. He has authored or coauthored more than 350 articles and books on capital theory, finance, natural resource economics and experimental economics. About Big Think | Smarter Faster™ ► Big Think The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century. Go Deeper with Big Think: ►Become a Big Think Member Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more ►Get Big Think+ for Business Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hear from part time faculty member and part time comedian, Erik Linstead, along with the wonderful, Lauren, to learn more about our amazing engineering program. We talk about facilities, research, and everything in between! Produced by Daniel Mejia.
Joel Griffith is a research fellow in the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation Joel Griffith earned his juris doctor at the Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, with a dual emphasis in Alternative Dispute Resolution and Federal Income Taxation; he is currently a member of the State Bar of California. At Chapman, he was a charter board member and treasurer of the Investment Law Society, served as a charter member and vice-president of the Chapman chapter of the California Republican Lawyers Association, and competed on both the mock trial and mediation teams. Following law school, Joel managed an equities trading account utilizing market neutral strategies. As an attorney, he worked with Heideman Nudelman Kalik, PC in Washington, D.C. During the 2012 presidential primary season, Joel worked for a campaign as MI state field director, OH state operations director, and WA parliamentarian/assistant delegate strategist. Joel is currently a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. Previously, he worked as a researcher for a former member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Joel also was Deputy Research Director at the National Association of Counties. Most recently he was Director of the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council. Numerous media outlets have featured Joel's written analysis, including The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes online, Investor's Business Daily, The Washington Times, the Orange County Register, and Times of Israel. He also made appearances on Fox News and Fox Business News See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this episode of Feudal Future, hosts Joel Kotkin and Marshall Toplansky are joined by Tom Campbell, former congressman, and Shawn Steel, republican national committee member. This show is a roundtable discussion on the future of California politics.Tom Campbell served five terms in the US Congress and two years in the California State Senate. He was finance director of California and director of the bureau of competition of the Federal Trade Commission.He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago and a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard. He was a White House Fellow and a US Supreme Court law clerk, a tenured law professor at Stanford, dean of the Haas School of Business at Berkeley, and dean of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University.Shawn Steel was elected in 2016 to a four-year term as the national committeeman of the Republican Party of California. He is a former chair of the Republican Party of California and has been active in GOP politics since he worked for Ronald Reagan's California gubernatorial campaign in 1966.Join the 'Beyond Feudalism' Facebook group to share your story, ask questions and connect with other citizen leaders: https://www.facebook.com/groups/beyondfeudalismTweet thoughts: @joelkotkin, @mtoplansky, #FeudalFuture #BeyondFeudalismLearn more about Joel's book 'The Coming of Neo-Feudalism': https://amzn.to/3a1VV87Sign Up For News & Alerts: http://joelkotkin.com/#subscribeThis show is presented by the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, which focuses on research and analysis of global, national and regional demographic trends and explores policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time.
Joel Griffith earned his juris doctor at the Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, with a dual emphasis in Alternative Dispute Resolution and Federal Income Taxation; he is currently a member of the State Bar of California. At Chapman, he was a charter board member and treasurer of the Investment Law Society, served as a charter member and vice-president of the Chapman chapter of the California Republican Lawyers Association, and competed on both the mock trial and mediation teams. Following law school, Joel managed an equities trading account utilizing market neutral strategies. As an attorney, he worked with Heideman Nudelman Kalik, PC in Washington, D.C. During the 2012 presidential primary season, Joel worked for a campaign as MI state field director, OH state operations director, and WA parliamentarian/assistant delegate strategist. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In January of 1776, Thomas Paine anonymously penned a radical proposal for American independence. “Common Sense,” the title of his pamphlet, has been a rallying cry for American patriots since our founding and continues to unite a dissatisfied public in the pursuit of better governance.Today, a new Common Sense Party of California – led by Quentin Kopp and Tom Campbell – aims to free Californians from the yoke of single-party rule. Ending One-Party Rule, Once and For AllCalifornia has problems. From drought to fires, a bankrupt pension system, homelessness, unemployment, and housing crises, the only “solutions” our leaders have offered are more regulation, higher taxes, and the declaration of a permanent state of emergency. The primary crisis, however, is the lack of leadership.The Democratic Party has failed liberal and conservative voters alike. Lacking serious competition from an increasingly irrelevant GOP, our legislature has let special interests write the laws – that is, when “Emperor Newsom” isn't exercising indefinite and dubious “emergency powers.”Help is On the WayMeanwhile, former U.S. Congressman and California state senator Tom Campbell has been laying the groundwork for an independent third party that could run serious contenders for the state office as soon as 2022. Outside of his political career, Campbell has served as Dean of Chapman University's Fowler School of Law, a Dean and professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, and Professor of Law at Stanford.Campbell joined me to outline his vision of a party of principles and independence from political monopoly run by special interests. We'll also discuss the ever-important question of separation of powers in the context of federalism and California's COVID policy.After learning about the Common Sense Party from Judge Quentin Kopp last fall, I've been eager to get an update. Signature gathering to get on the ballot was put on hold by the pandemic, but Campbell and Kopp are finally getting back to work. If the recall movement is any indicator of Californian's dissatisfaction with the status quo, they should have no trouble getting the 70,000 required signatures to get on the ballot. If you couldn't listen live, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and leave a 5-star review.
Beverly is a remarkable woman. She is very passionate about her business. She name her business SEE (See Everyone Elevate) and that is very motivating. ALL ABOUT BEVERLY: Beverly Jennings is CEO of SEE Company, which she founded to enable diversity-forward and inclusion-focused enterprises to achieve significant growth. As former Head of Global Supplier Diversity & Inclusion at Johnson & Johnson, Jennings brings her C-level business knowledge, values-driven leadership and supplier diversity expertise to corporations and business owners, preparing them to succeed in an ever-changing environment. With her signature approach and energy, Jennings is leading SEE Company with her vision to “see everyone elevate.” As a trusted advisor and certified business coach, she offers strategies and guidance for executives to deliver measurable success. Her three decades of experience span customer service, process excellence, end-to-end supply chain management and business development. Jennings also extends her knowledge to Boards of growth-oriented organizations. She is currently Advisor and former Vice Chair and Executive Committee member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable (BDR), a non-profit of companies spending $1 billion or more annually with diverse suppliers, which J&J joined as the first healthcare company. She co-chairs the BDR Global Committee and leads the BDR Triad, which connects corporations, diverse businesses and investors for growth. She is a member of the Board of Directors for Turtle & Hughes, one of the largest independent electrical and industrial distributors in the nation, and serves on the Board of Rose International, one of the leading minority- and woman- owned providers of workforce and technology solutions. Her previous role at J&J was Vice President, Worldwide Process Excellence, Consumer Group. Earlier, she was Director of Manufacturing at Vistakon, now Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, with responsibility for 1,200 employees. Prior to that she served in a variety of Director positions including Quality, Customer Service and Distribution. For eight years, she co-chaired the African American Leadership Council National Employee Resource Group with 35 chapters and 1,500 members. In addition to healthcare, Jennings' management experience encompasses the retail and food industries. Jennings previously served as a board member to the Healthcare Supplier Diversity Alliance, the Women Presidents' Education Organization (WPEO), Women's Business Enterprise National Council (WBENC), Community First Credit Union and the Girl Scouts of Gateway Council. She has been recognized as a champion, sponsor, mentor and advocate for business and community. These include J&J's Top 25 People of the Year, the Diverse Manufacturing Supply Chain Alliance (DMSCA) Legacy Award, the WBE Hall of Fame and a Top 25 Leading Women Entrepreneur (LWE) in New Jersey. She also received the WBENC Applause Award, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) Masked Award, and was a Gateway Girl Scouts Woman of Distinction. Jennings holds an MBA in Industrial Management from the University of Dallas; she is a Certified Master Business Coach from Fowler School of Business, and she earned a BS degree in Management from the University of West Florida. Also, WATCH OUT! our listeners was the first to know about the new clothing line that will be coming in the near future. For more information, visit the website at http://seecompany.co you can also follow and like the SEE Company on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. If you want to contact Beverly you can contact her on social media as well as Beverly Jennings.
Press Play for: -What you Need to Know Before Going into Law -Learning A Lot vs. Losing A Lot -How Covid19 Helped a Law Firm Grow -Scared Money Doesn't Make Money -An Incredible Story that Changed a Man’s Life -Why how You Dress is So Important We Meet: Ali Razavi, Razavi Law Group Episode References: -Better Call Saul - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3032476/ Connect: Connect with Rick: https://linktr.ee/mrrickjordan Connect with Ali: http://razavilawgroup.com/ Subscribe and Review to ALL IN with Rick Jordan on iTunes Subscribe and Comment on CastBox Subscribe on Google Podcasts or Google Play Follow on Spotify Subscribe and Review on Stitcher About Guest: Ali Razavi, Esq. is the founder and managing attorney at Razavi Law Group. Mr. Razavi is an Orange County native, having been born and raised in Mission Viejo, California. He graduated at the top of his class at UCLA, earning cum laude honors. He pursued his law degree at Chapman University’s reputable Fowler School of Law. Since then, Mr. Razavi has been solely focusing on civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and has reached hundreds of successful resolutions for his clients. At 31 years old, Mr. Razavi successfully manages a multi-million dollar a year civil litigation practice, focusing on personal injury and employment law.
Press Play for: -What you Need to Know Before Going into Law -Learning A Lot vs. Losing A Lot -How Covid19 Helped a Law Firm Grow -Scared Money Doesn't Make Money -An Incredible Story that Changed a Man’s Life -Why how You Dress is So Important We Meet: Ali Razavi, Razavi Law Group Episode References: -Better Call Saul - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3032476/ Connect: Connect with Rick: https://linktr.ee/mrrickjordan Connect with Ali: http://razavilawgroup.com/ Subscribe and Review to ALL IN with Rick Jordan on iTunes Subscribe and Comment on CastBox Subscribe on Google Podcasts or Google Play Follow on Spotify Subscribe and Review on Stitcher About Guest: Ali Razavi, Esq. is the founder and managing attorney at Razavi Law Group. Mr. Razavi is an Orange County native, having been born and raised in Mission Viejo, California. He graduated at the top of his class at UCLA, earning cum laude honors. He pursued his law degree at Chapman University’s reputable Fowler School of Law. Since then, Mr. Razavi has been solely focusing on civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and has reached hundreds of successful resolutions for his clients. At 31 years old, Mr. Razavi successfully manages a multi-million dollar a year civil litigation practice, focusing on personal injury and employment law.
Transportation Law Symposium Special - Transportation Planning & Land Use II Today's is the fourth in a mini series of episodes we are running from a first-of-its-kind academic event on law and transportation policy, The Future of Law & Transportation Symposium, featuring scholars from multiple disciplines. After a brief intro from Greg Shill, each scholar speaks and takes Q&A. The panelists are: Janice Griffith (Suffolk University Professor of Law): “Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Evolving Roles as Transportation Planning Incorporates Environmental and Sustainability Goals” Noah Kazis (Legal Fellow at the NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, New York University School of Law and the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service): “Transportation, Land Use, and the Sources of Hyper-Localism” Kenneth Stahl (Professor and Director, Environmental Land Use and Real Estate Law Program, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law): “Integrating Transportation Policy into the Land Use Curriculum” Darien Shanske (Professor of Law, University of California-Davis School of Law) co-author Deb Niemeier (Clark Distinguished Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland A. James Clark School of Engineering): “Subsidizing Sprawl, Segregation and Regressivity: A Deep Dive into Sublocal Tax Districts” Symposium Program Follow us on the web or on Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @gregshill, @n_kazis, and Ken Stahl (@kookie13). Producer: Schuyler Pals. The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.
Steve Scalise, House Minority Whip and U.S. Representative for the 1st district of Louisiana, on the Democrats' proposed $3.4 trillion Heroes Act in response to the coronavirus. Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Claremont Institute, on the Left’s growing intolerance and social marginalization of anyone who represents or supports President Trump. Kevin Freeman, Host of “Economic War Room” and Co-founder of Every Legal Vote, on the Every Legal Vote initiative. Scott Rasmussen, Public Opinion Pollster and Editor-At-Large at Ballotpedia, on his post-mortem on the polling industry after the wildly inaccurate predictions of the 2020 election outcomes. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Speakers:Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityPatrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be DoneScotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean ProvidersJulie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future SocietyModerator: Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Speakers:Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityPatrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be DoneScotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean ProvidersJulie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future SocietyModerator: Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:- Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University- Patrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be Done- Scotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean Providers- Julie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future Society- [Moderator] Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas, took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists explored the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:- Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University- Patrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be Done- Scotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean Providers- Julie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future Society- [Moderator] Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Corpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic contexts. And corpora (plural of corpus) have begun to see increasing use by judges, scholars, and advocates, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. This Teleforum will first provide an overview for those unfamiliar with corpus linguistics, and then address advantages and limitations of using language evidence from linguistic corpora in legal interpretation, such as when interpreting contracts, statutes, or constitutions, as well as highlight the use of corpus linguistics in recent cases. Featuring: -- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Corpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic contexts. And corpora (plural of corpus) have begun to see increasing use by judges, scholars, and advocates, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. This Teleforum will first provide an overview for those unfamiliar with corpus linguistics, and then address advantages and limitations of using language evidence from linguistic corpora in legal interpretation, such as when interpreting contracts, statutes, or constitutions, as well as highlight the use of corpus linguistics in recent cases. Featuring: -- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Joel Griffith joins Tim to talk about how America will get back to work in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and related quarantines across the country. Joel is a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. In this episode we look ahead to what's possible and exactly how the country can get its economy back on its feet and humming again. https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/Restarting_the_Economy_auphnic.mp3 The unemployment rolls are growing. Millions are out of work. Millions of businesses, large and small have been shuttered, at least for the time being. People who were at first worried that they could become infected with the COVID-19 virus as now worried if they will have a job to go back to in the not too distant future. As the shutdowns drag on, those worries intensify, and people who are complicit in social distancing directives from their governors and federal officials are getting more restless. They want to get back to work. They want a plan. They want to know what's next and they want it to be soon. For many, it's really not a matter of “want.” They need the process for restarting the economy to commence as soon as possible. For their families and their financial futures. They need answers. Joel Griffith may have a few. He's a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, and he's been spending a good deal of time lately talking to cable news anchors about this very issue. One of the things he observes in many of his conversations is that many people often forget that there is a major psychological component when the subject is economics. Links The Heritage Foundation How to Restart National Economies During the Coronavirus Crisis, McKinsey & Company Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences Want to stop consumer hoarding in times of crisis? New research may have the answer, INFORMS and its journal Marketing Science About this Episode's Guest Joel Griffith Joel Griffith earned his juris doctor at the Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, with a dual emphasis in Alternative Dispute Resolution and Federal Income Taxation; he is currently a member of the State Bar of California. At Chapman, he was a charter board member and treasurer of the Investment Law Society, served as a charter member and vice-president of the Chapman chapter of the California Republican Lawyers Association, and competed on both the mock trial and mediation teams. Following law school, Joel managed an equities trading account utilizing market neutral strategies. As an attorney, he worked with Heideman Nudelman Kalik, PC in Washington, D.C. During the 2012 presidential primary season, Joel worked for a campaign as MI state field director, OH state operations director, and WA parliamentarian/assistant delegate strategist. Joel is currently a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. Previously, he worked as a researcher for a former member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Joel also was Deputy Research Director at the National Association of Counties. Most recently he was Director of the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council. Numerous media outlets have featured Joel's written analysis, including The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes online, Investor's Business Daily, The Washington Times, the Orange County Register, and Times of Israel. He also made appearances on Fox News and Fox Business News.
Joel Griffith joins Tim to talk about how America will get back to work in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and related quarantines across the country. Joel is a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. In this episode we look ahead to what’s possible and exactly how the country can get its economy back on its feet and humming again. https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/Restarting_the_Economy_auphnic.mp3 The unemployment rolls are growing. Millions are out of work. Millions of businesses, large and small have been shuttered, at least for the time being. People who were at first worried that they could become infected with the COVID-19 virus as now worried if they will have a job to go back to in the not too distant future. As the shutdowns drag on, those worries intensify, and people who are complicit in social distancing directives from their governors and federal officials are getting more restless. They want to get back to work. They want a plan. They want to know what’s next and they want it to be soon. For many, it’s really not a matter of “want.” They need the process for restarting the economy to commence as soon as possible. For their families and their financial futures. They need answers. Joel Griffith may have a few. He’s a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, and he’s been spending a good deal of time lately talking to cable news anchors about this very issue. One of the things he observes in many of his conversations is that many people often forget that there is a major psychological component when the subject is economics. Links The Heritage Foundation How to Restart National Economies During the Coronavirus Crisis, McKinsey & Company Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences Want to stop consumer hoarding in times of crisis? New research may have the answer, INFORMS and its journal Marketing Science About this Episode’s Guest Joel Griffith Joel Griffith earned his juris doctor at the Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, with a dual emphasis in Alternative Dispute Resolution and Federal Income Taxation; he is currently a member of the State Bar of California. At Chapman, he was a charter board member and treasurer of the Investment Law Society, served as a charter member and vice-president of the Chapman chapter of the California Republican Lawyers Association, and competed on both the mock trial and mediation teams. Following law school, Joel managed an equities trading account utilizing market neutral strategies. As an attorney, he worked with Heideman Nudelman Kalik, PC in Washington, D.C. During the 2012 presidential primary season, Joel worked for a campaign as MI state field director, OH state operations director, and WA parliamentarian/assistant delegate strategist. Joel is currently a research fellow for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. Previously, he worked as a researcher for a former member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Joel also was Deputy Research Director at the National Association of Counties. Most recently he was Director of the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council. Numerous media outlets have featured Joel’s written analysis, including The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes online, Investor’s Business Daily, The Washington Times, the Orange County Register, and Times of Israel. He also made appearances on Fox News and Fox Business News.
Dr. Vernon L. Smith was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002 for his groundbreaking work in experimental economics. Dr. Smith has joint appointments with the Argyros School of Business & Economics and the Fowler School of Law, and he is part of a team that will create and run the new Economic Science Institute at Chapman. Here is a link to Dr. Smith’s full bio: https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/vernon-smith You can learn more about the Economic Science Institute at Chapman University here: https://www.chapman.edu/research/institutes-and-centers/economic-science-institute/index.aspx And you can learn more about Vernon Smith’s coauthor, Sabiou M. Inoua, here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=d4XLUPYAAAAJ&hl=en Here is a link to the video of the presentation Dr. Smith made for the Voices of Culture lecture series at the University of Arizona: https://vimeo.com/397787102 And finally, here is a link to the USA Today article that he wrote on the coronavirus: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/03/23/coronavirus-economy-lives-suspense-not-wall-street-crash-column/2898448001/ James Harrigan & Vernon Smith
In today's episode, host Ric Brutocao talks with guest mentor John Eastman, Esq., founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law Professor at Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, and Appellate Attorney. John has a wealth of knowledge about current government policies and trends that can (and do) radically impact our businesses and life, including legal aspects not talked about in mainstream media. He also delivers wonderful insights on the wisdom of the U.S. Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Find Show Notes here. Listen below or by FREE Podcast (any device, any time)
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?Featuring:- Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute- Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law- Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center- [Moderator] Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLPVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?Featuring:- Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute- Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law- Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center- [Moderator] Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLPVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPProf. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityModerator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & ConnollyIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
This Deep Dive episode brings you the audio from a recent teleforum co-hosted by the Regulatory Transparency Project and the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group.This episode deals with a pending lawsuit in the Western District of Washington: Lighthouse Resources v. Inslee. This case, which involves a dispute over permitting construction for a coal export terminal on Washington's Columbia river, has important implications for disputes between federal and state jurisdiction in environmental law and regulation.Featuring:- Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal Foundation- Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law Visit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
This Deep Dive episode brings you the audio from a recent teleforum co-hosted by the Regulatory Transparency Project and the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group.This episode deals with a pending lawsuit in the Western District of Washington: Lighthouse Resources v. Inslee. This case, which involves a dispute over permitting construction for a coal export terminal on Washington's Columbia river, has important implications for disputes between federal and state jurisdiction in environmental law and regulation.Featuring:- Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal Foundation- Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law Visit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
When state regulators block approval of construction projects, disappointed businesses routinely challenge the decision in court. A lawsuit currently pending in the Western District of Washington, Lighthouse Resources v. Inslee, however, is not your average permit dispute. The plaintiff, Lighthouse Resources, wants to build an export terminal on the Columbia River that can accept and ship coal to Asian customers mined at Lighthouse-owned sites in Montana and Wyoming. The terminal will generate billions in taxable revenue and create thousands of jobs. The defendants, whose opposition to coal as an energy source is well documented, have denied a federally required water-quality certification. Lighthouse’s constitutional claims (also asserted by intervenor BNSF Railway) include federal preemption and violation of the Commerce Clause. Early motions have attracted state amici supporting each side as well as briefs from business associations and environmental groups. The suit has reached a critical stage, with the plaintiffs moving for summary judgment on the Foreign Commerce Clause claim, arguing that the defendants’ actions “implicate” foreign policy issues in a way that prevents the federal government from speaking with “one voice” about international trade.Featuring: Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal FoundationProf. Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. 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.
When state regulators block approval of construction projects, disappointed businesses routinely challenge the decision in court. A lawsuit currently pending in the Western District of Washington, Lighthouse Resources v. Inslee, however, is not your average permit dispute. The plaintiff, Lighthouse Resources, wants to build an export terminal on the Columbia River that can accept and ship coal to Asian customers mined at Lighthouse-owned sites in Montana and Wyoming. The terminal will generate billions in taxable revenue and create thousands of jobs. The defendants, whose opposition to coal as an energy source is well documented, have denied a federally required water-quality certification. Lighthouse’s constitutional claims (also asserted by intervenor BNSF Railway) include federal preemption and violation of the Commerce Clause. Early motions have attracted state amici supporting each side as well as briefs from business associations and environmental groups. The suit has reached a critical stage, with the plaintiffs moving for summary judgment on the Foreign Commerce Clause claim, arguing that the defendants’ actions “implicate” foreign policy issues in a way that prevents the federal government from speaking with “one voice” about international trade.Featuring: Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal FoundationProf. Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. 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.
When is it appropriate for states and cities to contradict or ignore federal law? Do states really possess "plenary power"? What are the limits of local police powers? With the rise of state marijuana legalization and "sanctuary cities," are we facing a nullification crisis, or are the local governments properly shielding people from Washington's overreach? Does the federal government have a role in protecting city residents when a city violates their federal constitutional rights? This panel will explore the balance of power among federal, state, and local governments, with an emphasis on key state and federal court cases.Featuring:Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University & Senior Fellow at the Claremont InstituteProf. Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Santa Clara University School of LawProf. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Director, California Constitution Center, Berkeley Law, University of California Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Ashlee Titus, President, Sacramento Lawyers Chapter
When is it appropriate for states and cities to contradict or ignore federal law? Do states really possess "plenary power"? What are the limits of local police powers? With the rise of state marijuana legalization and "sanctuary cities," are we facing a nullification crisis, or are the local governments properly shielding people from Washington's overreach? Does the federal government have a role in protecting city residents when a city violates their federal constitutional rights? This panel will explore the balance of power among federal, state, and local governments, with an emphasis on key state and federal court cases.Featuring:Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University & Senior Fellow at the Claremont InstituteProf. Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Santa Clara University School of LawProf. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Director, California Constitution Center, Berkeley Law, University of California Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Ashlee Titus, President, Sacramento Lawyers Chapter
Denise Howell is joined by Tom W. Bell, who is a professor at Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, and author of Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations. They discuss off-the-shelf government and open-source legal systems like Ulex, big tech stepping into roles traditionally occupied by government, seasteading, the future of cryptocurrency, and more. Host: Denise Howell Guest: Tom W. Bell Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation. Sponsor: ZipRecruiter.com/triangulation
Denise Howell is joined by Tom W. Bell, who is a professor at Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, and author of Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations. They discuss off-the-shelf government and open-source legal systems like Ulex, big tech stepping into roles traditionally occupied by government, seasteading, the future of cryptocurrency, and more. Host: Denise Howell Guest: Tom W. Bell Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation. Sponsor: ZipRecruiter.com/triangulation
Denise Howell is joined by Tom W. Bell, who is a professor at Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, and author of Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations. They discuss off-the-shelf government and open-source legal systems like Ulex, big tech stepping into roles traditionally occupied by government, seasteading, the future of cryptocurrency, and more. Host: Denise Howell Guest: Tom W. Bell Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation. Sponsor: ZipRecruiter.com/triangulation
Denise Howell is joined by Tom W. Bell, who is a professor at Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, and author of Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations. They discuss off-the-shelf government and open-source legal systems like Ulex, big tech stepping into roles traditionally occupied by government, seasteading, the future of cryptocurrency, and more. Host: Denise Howell Guest: Tom W. Bell Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation. Sponsor: ZipRecruiter.com/triangulation
Constitutional originalism is the cornerstone of conservative jurisprudence today, but there are several rival versions of originalism, and sometimes you even hear about the “new” originalism, which sounds more like an old Spinal Tap joke. This week Steve Hayward caught up with John Eastman, the Salvatori Professor of Law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law and senior fellow at the... Source
Justice Scalia put it bluntly in Morrison v. Olson: “There are now no lines.” Morrison, 478 at 726 (Scalia, J., dissenting). This is, perhaps, an unsurprising observation, considering the majority in Humphrey's Executor v. United States recognized that, “between the decision in the Myers v. United States case, which sustains the unrestrictable power of the President to remove purely executive officers, and our present decision that such power does not extend to an office such as that here involved, there shall remain a field of doubt." Humphrey's Ex'r, 295 U.S. at 632. How do courts navigate this field? In Humphrey's Executor, for-cause removal was approved as applied to the five-member FTC, which exercises powers the Court described as "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." Id. at 624. In Morrison, the Court approved for-cause removal—by the Attorney General—as applied to an independent counsel. In so doing, it walked back its emphasis on the character of an agency's or officer's functions and expressly noted there was "no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel [were] 'executive.'" Morrison, 487 at 691. But "the real question," the Court reasoned, "is whether . . . removal restrictions are of such a nature that they impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty" to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Id. Then, in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, the Court invalidated a two-layer system of for-cause removal that over-insulated PCAOB members. Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 495–508. Combining the lessons of Humphrey's Executor and Morrison, the problem was that the act in question "grant[ed] the Board executive power without the Executive's oversight, [thereby] subvert[ing] the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed." Id. at 498.While Myers and Free Enterprise teach that limits do exist on Congress's ability to isolate executive functions from executive oversight, a clear articulation of those limits has so far eluded the Court's jurisprudence in this area. And with an active Special Counsel and several recent lawsuits challenging the structural design of various independent agencies, the question remains: how independent is too independent? Is there any unifying principle for lower courts to apply? Does the character of an agency's/officer's functions matter? May an agency's director be removable only for cause if it is a single director? The D.C. Circuit said yes to the latter while sitting en banc in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but what if there were no Financial Stability Oversight Council with veto power over the CFPB's policies? Or, what if there is such a veto-wielding council but the agency is not subject to funding via the normal budgeting process over which the President holds veto power?Different agencies are structured differently, so certainly we are stuck with an ad hoc inquiry. But how is a judge to know when Congress has placed one straw too many on the camel's back?Prof. William W. Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteHon. Henry Kerner, Special Counsel, Office of the Special CounselProf. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Section 1 of the 14th amendment reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Birthright citizenship stems from the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was meant to override the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied African Americans citizenship. Recently, President Trump announced that he would put an end to birthright citizenship for those born to parents illegally in the country with a stroke of a pen through executive order. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Dr. John C. Eastman, the Henry Salvatori professor of law and community service, and former dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and attorney Margaret Stock from the Cascadia Cross Border Law Group LLC out of Anchorage Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., to discuss the origin and application of birthright citizenship, whether or not it can be restricted, and much more. Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori professor of law and community service, and former dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. Margaret Stock is an attorney from the Cascadia Cross Border Law Group LLC out of Anchorage Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.
In the past few years, a series of lawsuits have been filed by cities and states against oil and gas companies, seeking to hold these companies liable for the effects of climate change. Join us for an engaging, expert panel discussion on these lawsuits, their background, the legal theories underlying them, and recent developments in some of the jurisdictions where they have been filed. Speakers:Prof. Steven Ferrey, Suffolk University Law SchoolPhil Goldberg, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P; Director, Progressive Policy Institute Center for Civil JusticeProf. Donald Kochan, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. James R. May, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolKenneth Reich, Kenneth Reich Law, LLC; Adjunct Professor, Boston University School of LawModerator: Lindsey de la Torre - National Association of ManufacturersOnline registration is closed. Walk-ins welcome.Drinks and hors d'oeuvres will be served.
In the past few years, a series of lawsuits have been filed by cities and states against oil and gas companies, seeking to hold these companies liable for the effects of climate change. Join us for an engaging, expert panel discussion on these lawsuits, their background, the legal theories underlying them, and recent developments in some of the jurisdictions where they have been filed. Speakers:Prof. Steven Ferrey, Suffolk University Law SchoolPhil Goldberg, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P; Director, Progressive Policy Institute Center for Civil JusticeProf. Donald Kochan, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. James R. May, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolKenneth Reich, Kenneth Reich Law, LLC; Adjunct Professor, Boston University School of LawModerator: Lindsey de la Torre - National Association of ManufacturersOnline registration is closed. Walk-ins welcome.Drinks and hors d'oeuvres will be served.
Topics included: Civil Forfeiture, Public Interest Law, Economic Liberty, History of Constitutional interpretation, New Supreme Court AppointmentsLarry Salzman is a Senior Attorney litigating cases involving property rights and economic liberty. He is also an adjunct clinical professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, in Orange County, Calif., where PLF’s Liberty Clinic project sponsors a trial litigation program for students. He was previously an attorney at the Institute for Justice and a judicial clerk at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In addition to his career in law, Larry co-founded an e-commerce company and served for four years as its CEO.More on Larry can be found at https://pacificlegal.org/staff/larry-salzman/.Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! Or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out the Ayn Rand Institute.
John Eastman, Esq., founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law Professor at Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, and Appellate Attorney, talks with The Mentors Radio Show host Ric Brutocao on current policies and trends that can (and do) radically impact our businesses and life, on Legal aspects not talked about in mainstream media, and on the wisdom of the U.S. Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Find Show Notes here. Listen below.
Tom W. Bell earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Chicago in 1993, then practiced law in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. before serving as a policy director at the Cato Institute. In 1998, he joined the faculty of Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, where he teaches all of the first-year common law courses and electives in high-tech and intellectual property law. Professor Bell has published papers on copyright, Internet law, polycentric law, prediction markets, and the Third Amendment (the one about quartering troops). His books include "Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good" (Mercatus 2014) and "Your Next Government? From the Nation State to Stateless Associations" (Cambridge University Press 2017). Through Archimediate LLC, Tom designs, installs, and supports legal systems for special jurisdictions. Most recently, that work has taken him to French Polynesia, where he helped forge a memorandum of understanding to allow seasteading in that island paradise. Check out the show notes page at www.economicrockstar.com/tomwbell Support the podcast for as little as $1 per month over at www.patreon.com/economicrockstar
In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University 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.
In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University 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.
Did you know that you have a say in the U.S. government’s regulatory process?The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that most regulations promulgated by administrative agencies go through a process called “notice and comment rulemaking.” Stripped to its basics, that means that the agency must give notice of a proposed rulemaking and then give the public a chance to comment. The law allows ordinary citizens, as much as sophisticated interest groups, opportunities to participate in, and have opinions heard on, the development of regulations. In a recent article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006157), Professor Donald Kochan calls this the underappreciated “commenting power.” The duty for agencies to consider and respond to significant comments is what makes commenting so powerful. In addition to Professor Kochan's article, Argive — a Silicon Valley non-profit that seeks to make regulatory processes more accountable and accessible to all — recently issued a report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586bee97c534a5731df8f6c4/t/5942c4c0be6594acc08fa2a5/1497547972474/Argive+Improving+Regulations.gov-2.pdf) on what they perceived as deficiencies in and suggested solutions for the actual commenting system.In this live podcast, Professor Kochan will explain the commenting process, the scope of agencies duties to respond to comments, and why it is important to comment whether you support or oppose a rule. The podcast will also discuss some recent and older examples of cases where agency’s failure to take comments seriously has invalidated or jeopardized rulemaking efforts. Maleka Momand, co-author of the Argive report and former President of Argive, will cover the points raised and solutions suggested in the report. Both speakers may also comment on a new Administrative Conference of the U.S. project studying public engagement in rulemaking (https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/public-engagement-rulemaking).Featuring:- Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Maleka Momand, Co-Founder and CEO, Esper, Former-President, ArgiveVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Did you know that you have a say in the U.S. government’s regulatory process?The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that most regulations promulgated by administrative agencies go through a process called “notice and comment rulemaking.” Stripped to its basics, that means that the agency must give notice of a proposed rulemaking and then give the public a chance to comment. The law allows ordinary citizens, as much as sophisticated interest groups, opportunities to participate in, and have opinions heard on, the development of regulations. In a recent article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006157), Professor Donald Kochan calls this the underappreciated “commenting power.” The duty for agencies to consider and respond to significant comments is what makes commenting so powerful. In addition to Professor Kochan's article, Argive — a Silicon Valley non-profit that seeks to make regulatory processes more accountable and accessible to all — recently issued a report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586bee97c534a5731df8f6c4/t/5942c4c0be6594acc08fa2a5/1497547972474/Argive+Improving+Regulations.gov-2.pdf) on what they perceived as deficiencies in and suggested solutions for the actual commenting system.In this live podcast, Professor Kochan will explain the commenting process, the scope of agencies duties to respond to comments, and why it is important to comment whether you support or oppose a rule. The podcast will also discuss some recent and older examples of cases where agency’s failure to take comments seriously has invalidated or jeopardized rulemaking efforts. Maleka Momand, co-author of the Argive report and former President of Argive, will cover the points raised and solutions suggested in the report. Both speakers may also comment on a new Administrative Conference of the U.S. project studying public engagement in rulemaking (https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/public-engagement-rulemaking).Featuring:- Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Maleka Momand, Co-Founder and CEO, Esper, Former-President, ArgiveVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Governments across the globe have begun evolving from lumbering bureaucracies into smaller, more agile special jurisdictions. Private providers increasingly deliver services that political authorities formerly monopolized, inspiring greater competition and efficiency. In Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations, Tom W. Bell, professor at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law, shows how these trends suggest that new networks of special jurisdictions will soon surpass nation-states in the same way that networked computers replaced mainframes. This quiet revolution is transforming governments from the bottom up, inside out, worldwide, with the potential to bring more freedom, peace, and prosperity to people everywhere.Join us for a conversation with author Professor Bell, hosted by Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus of Libertarianism.org’s Free Thoughts podcast. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Dr. Vernon L. Smith was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002 for his groundbreaking work in experimental economics. He has joint appointments with the Argyros School of Business & Economics and the Fowler School of Law, and is part of a team that will create and run the new Economic Science Institute at Chapman. Dr. Smith has authored or co-authored more than 300 articles and books on capital theory, finance, natural resource economics and experimental economics. In this episode, Professor Smith discusses: What life was like growing up in Wichita, Kansas during the Great Depression. How he was schooled during his early formative years by an immigrant German teacher. The roles of his parents in influencing Vernon’s beliefs, morals and hard working ethics. His role during World War II as an employee of Boeing. A story of overcoming adversity and being exposed to innovation and entrepreneurial activity. How electrification during the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s ended the use of the Coleman Lamp for famers but how Coleman Lamps pivoted to deal with this structural shift. How he found his way in studying economics and his influencers at that time. We find out about Vernon’s discovery of a competitive equilibrium in an oral outcry auction without participants requiring complete or even prior knowledge resulting in his award of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. His invitation to unveil a statue of Adam Smith in Edinburgh Who he would like to meet if he could time travel Books he’d recommend and much more. Check out the shownotes page at www.economicrockstar.com/vernonsmith If you'd like to support the show, check out my Patreon page at www.patreon.com/economicrockstar
On the day he was to resign, former CFPB Director Richard Cordray appointed his former Chief of Staff Leandra English to deputy director. The Dodd-Frank Act states that the deputy director is to “serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.” That day, President Trump appointed Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to serve as the acting director, under authority given to him in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. On Monday, November 27, the CFPB opened with two directors claiming authority. Two days later, a federal judge denied Leandra English’s request for a restraining order to prevent Mick Mulvaney from serving as the agency’s head.Professor John C. Eastman will join us to discuss the CFPB and why this battle may not be over.Featuring:Prof. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University 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.
On the day he was to resign, former CFPB Director Richard Cordray appointed his former Chief of Staff Leandra English to deputy director. The Dodd-Frank Act states that the deputy director is to “serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.” That day, President Trump appointed Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to serve as the acting director, under authority given to him in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. On Monday, November 27, the CFPB opened with two directors claiming authority. Two days later, a federal judge denied Leandra English’s request for a restraining order to prevent Mick Mulvaney from serving as the agency’s head.Professor John C. Eastman will join us to discuss the CFPB and why this battle may not be over.Featuring:Prof. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University 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.
At its August 2016 meeting in San Francisco, the American Bar Association approved a major change to its Rules of Professional Conduct that will affect all lawyers if adopted by their licensing states. In pertinent part, the new Rule 8.4(g) would make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status." The new Rule applies to “conduct related to the practice of law" which (1) represents an expansion from the present conduct performed “in the course of representing a client" and (2) new Comment 3 defines conduct to “include[e] the operation and management of a law firm or law practice."Ms. Paulette Brown, Partner, Locke Lord LLP; Immediate Past President, American Bar AssociationMr. Stephen Gillers, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of LawProf. Ronald D. Rotunda, Professor, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityHon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, TexasModerator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme CourtProfessor Rotunda's PowerPoint Slides
At its August 2016 meeting in San Francisco, the American Bar Association approved a major change to its Rules of Professional Conduct that will affect all lawyers if adopted by their licensing states. In pertinent part, the new Rule 8.4(g) would make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status." The new Rule applies to “conduct related to the practice of law" which (1) represents an expansion from the present conduct performed “in the course of representing a client" and (2) new Comment 3 defines conduct to “include[e] the operation and management of a law firm or law practice."Ms. Paulette Brown, Partner, Locke Lord LLP; Immediate Past President, American Bar AssociationMr. Stephen Gillers, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of LawProf. Ronald D. Rotunda, Professor, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityHon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, TexasModerator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme CourtProfessor Rotunda's PowerPoint Slides
President Trump's administration has helped renew interest in federalism among Democrats and liberals. Is there now more opportunity for cross-ideological support for this important structure of the Constitution? Or do continuing divisions on the nature of federalism such as the debate between competitive and cooperative federalism make this an unpromising alliance?Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityDean Heather K. Gerken, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Abbe R. Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law SchoolProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law, School George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
President Trump's administration has helped renew interest in federalism among Democrats and liberals. Is there now more opportunity for cross-ideological support for this important structure of the Constitution? Or do continuing divisions on the nature of federalism such as the debate between competitive and cooperative federalism make this an unpromising alliance?Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityDean Heather K. Gerken, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Abbe R. Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law SchoolProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law, School George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
On August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued a decision in which, among other things, it affirmed the order of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council directing a federal judge to undergo a mental health examination and to submit to any treatment or counseling deemed necessary. The Committee found that part of the order to be “warranted and permissible.”The Constitution establishes the judicial power in Article III and provides, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The constitutional remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. In 1980, though, Congress enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which provides authority to a special committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C § 353(c).As one commentator has noted, “The investigation ... appears to move into uncharted territory for disciplinary cases.” Does a Circuit Judicial Council have the authority to require a federal judge to submit to psychological testing? If so, what showing is necessary? Simple cantankerousness can’t be enough, but where is the line between being a curmudgeon and being mentally ill? Do the federal courts have a mechanism for figuring that out?Featuring: Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of LawProf. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law; Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
On August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued a decision in which, among other things, it affirmed the order of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council directing a federal judge to undergo a mental health examination and to submit to any treatment or counseling deemed necessary. The Committee found that part of the order to be “warranted and permissible.”The Constitution establishes the judicial power in Article III and provides, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The constitutional remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. In 1980, though, Congress enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which provides authority to a special committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C § 353(c).As one commentator has noted, “The investigation ... appears to move into uncharted territory for disciplinary cases.” Does a Circuit Judicial Council have the authority to require a federal judge to submit to psychological testing? If so, what showing is necessary? Simple cantankerousness can’t be enough, but where is the line between being a curmudgeon and being mentally ill? Do the federal courts have a mechanism for figuring that out?Featuring: Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of LawProf. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law; Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Our panel of three experts in legal and judicial ethics discussed several recent cases and regulatory developments in the field, with an eye to translating these developments into practical wisdom about their likely impact on law practice in 2016 and beyond. -- Topics included the American Bar Association's move to expand the scope of the regulation of race, gender and other harassment and discrimination into the practice of law generally, including law firm management; amendments to the rules of discovery to help reduce the gamesmanship now often infecting the process; the extent to which the Supreme Court's decision in the North Carolina Dentists case may foreshadow limitations on the ability of states to regulate the practice of law without running afoul of the antitrust laws; whether competent legal advice must include a business advice component in certain settings; and how the use of social media to complain about a sitting judge can cross the line into unethical conduct. -- Featuring: Prof. W. William Hodes,Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University & President, The William Hodes Professional Corporation; Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law.
Some states have criticized Washington overreach on a number of energy and environmental issues, from fracking, the sale of public lands, utility regulation, and clean air and water regulation. Many state attorneys general have banded together to challenge alleged overreach in the environmental arena, including litigation against the EPA’s coal-fired power plant regulation plans. What are the proper federalism models for environmental regulation? What role should the courts and state attorneys general play? A panel of experts will discuss. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. Anthony L. (Tony) François, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Prof. Richard Frank, Director, California Environmental Law and Policy Center, UC Davis School of Law; Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development; Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Prof. Justin Pidot, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver. Moderator: Hon. Milan D. Smith, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Jennifer Perkins, Assistant Solicitor General, AG Opinions and Ethics at Arizona Attorney General's Office.
How should federalism affect “moral” issues like abortion, traditional marriage, and state RFRA laws? What about the intersection of equal protection and religious liberties? Should pro-life state attorneys general, for example, file lawsuits against abortion providers like Planned Parenthood? Is religious faith and morality inherently in tension with fidelity to the rule law? -- This debate was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. John Eastman, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University and Prof. Marci Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Moderator: Hon. Carlos Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Joel Ard, Member, Foster Pepper PLLC.
Dr. Carlos discusses juvenile and crime with Dr. Redding. Dr. Redding currently serves as the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Education at Chapman University, where he is the current holder of the Wang-Fradkin Chair, which is the highest honor Chapman can bestow on a faculty member for exceptional merit in scholarly or creative activity. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Dean for Administration, at the Fowler School of Law. Dr. Redding also holds an appointment as Professor of Psychology in the Schmid College of Science at Chapman University. Prior to joining Chapman, Dr. Richard Redding was Professor of Law at Villanova University School of Law, Research Professor of Psychology at Drexel University, and Director of the JD/PhD Program in Law and Psychology at Villanova and Drexel Universities. Before that, he was an Assistant Professor and Associate Director of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy at the University of Virginia School of Law, where he taught Mental Health Law, Psychiatry and Criminal Law, Law and Psychology, and the Mental Health Law Clinic.Dr. Redding specializes in forensic issues in criminal law, juvenile justice, the use of social science research in law and public policy, the role of sociopolitical attitudes in diversity and interpersonal and professional functioning and the ways in which social and political attitudes influence how science is used in policy making. His work in these areas is both theoretical (or policy-oriented) and empirical. Dr. Redding has published over 75 articles and book chapters in leading legal and peer-reviewed scientific journals, including Law and Human Behavior, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, University of Chicago Roundtable, Utah Law Review, American University Law Review, Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Washington & Lee Law Review, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, American Psychologist, Psychological Science, Psychological Inquiry, Journal of Social Issues, and the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, as well as publications of the American Bar Association, the MacArthur Foundation, the University of Chicago Press, Oxford University Press, and the U.S. Justice Department. He also has co-authored or co-edited four books.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
