Podcasts about frances mallery professor

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

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

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

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

December 1. 2023 Hoover Institution | Stanford University The Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) hosted its “State of American Institutions” conference on Thursday, November 30, and Friday, December 1. In this panel, scholars discuss the legitimacy of regulatory agencies in the executive branch. Concerns are raised about the unelected nature of the administrative state and its potential encroachment on the lawmaking authority of elected representatives. Scholars also address how regulatory agencies can bring technical expertise, emphasizing the integral role of presidential leadership and management in assessing the feasibility of agency decisions. It is further advanced that Congress could restrain regulatory agencies by bolstering its own staffing and resources, ensuring relevant expertise for effective oversight of executive branch decision making. For more information, visit https://www.hoover.org/events/state-american-institutions-center-revitalizing-american-institutions ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Michael McConnell, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; and Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford University Andrew Rudalevige, Thomas Brackett Reed Professor of Government, Bowdoin College Sharece Thrower, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution; and Associate Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University Moderator: Daniel Kessler, Keith and Jan Hurlbut Senior Fellow and Director of Research, Hoover Institution; and Professor of Management and Law, Stanford University ABOUT THE CENTER FOR REVITALIZING AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS (RAI): In an objective, non-partisan spirit, the Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) draws on the Hoover Institution's scholarship, government experience, and convening power to study the reasons behind the crisis in trust facing American institutions, analyze how they are operating in practice, and consider policy recommendations to rebuild trust and increase their effectiveness. Learn more: https://www.hoover.org/research-teams/center-revitalizing-american-institutions

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

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

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

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

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

One of the principal disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists surrounded the role of the new Constitution in relation to state authority.Federalists argued that the Constitution would make the federal Constitution plenary only in certain areas while preserving the role of the states. The Anti-Federalists feared that the federal Constitution would result in a nationalized government where states would play no role and the federal government would overwhelm any semblance of state authority. Panelists will debate what the Federalists meant when they argued for a plenary, but limited federal Constitution, the different views they held, and whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were correct.Featuring:Moderator: Honorable Trevor N. McFadden, United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaProf. John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence, Georgetown LawProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center Stanford Law School

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Featuring:Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLCAntonio García-Martínez, Author, Chaos Monkeys, and ex-Advisor, TwitterMichael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Stanford Law School, and Co-Chair, Oversight BoardChris Pavlovski, Founder and CEO, Rumble.comModerator: Olivia Jackson, General Counsel, Oversight BoardIntroduction: Jonathan Breit, Stanford Law School ’22* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universities have long been thought of, and cherished, as places for the free exchange of ideas. This idea has, however, come under pressure. Student groups have now routinely exercised pressure to keep people who they disagree with off campus. And safe spaces and trigger warnings—which limit speech that some have deemed offensive—have become regular features at universities across the nation. -- Many see the climate of shouting-down or protesting the expression of others' viewpoints as the symbolic beginning of an era limiting the freedom of speech on college campuses. While surveys seem to show a majority of students disagree with universities curtailing speech, even when it is offensive, vocal minorities with opposing views have been the ones capturing news headlines and the attention of the public at large. -- With the accessibility to speech provided by the internet and viral sharing of information, expression and speech spread with more ease than ever, but this same technology creates opportunities for back-lash on social media and gives a larger stage to those who would threaten the free market of ideas at our nation's universities. -- The First Amendment protects principles which have always required vigilance to maintain, and today's world makes no exception. This panel will explore how these developments have affected intellectual discourse on campus and if they are conducive to a meaningful learning experience at our universities. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Prof. Phillip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Suzanne Goldberg, Executive Vice President for University Life, Columbia University; Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law; Director, Constitutional Law Center; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

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

Has Originalism played a significant role in the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence? One scholar has concluded that even Justice Scalia used Originalism in only 30% of his 56 opinions on freedom of expression through the 2010 Term. -- Do landmark freedom of expression opinions square with the original understanding of the First Amendment? The Amendment's protections have been held to cover flag burning, cross burning, commercial advertising, campaign funding, virtual child pornography, violent video games and DVDs, expressive association, protests at military funerals and abortion clinics, false statements of fact, and nude dancing. The Supreme Court has also held that the First Amendment to some extent limits disciplinary measures in public schools, government employment actions, and conditions attached to government benefits. -- This panel will discuss how Originalism has been used in fashioning freedom of expression doctrine, and whether it should be used more (or less). -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. David F. Forte, Garwood Visiting Professor, Princeton University; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Prof. David M. Rabban, Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair; University Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; and Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union. Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC.

With commentary by Professor William Hubbard. Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is a leading authority on freedom of speech and religion, the relation of individual rights to government structure, originalism, and various other aspects of constitutional history and constitutional law. He is author of numerous articles and co-author of two casebooks: The Constitution of the United States (Foundation Press) and Religion and the Constitution (Aspen). He is co-editor of Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought (Yale Univ. Press). Since 1996, he has been a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Presented on November 15, 2016, by the Christian Legal Society, the St. Thomas More Society, and the Federalist Society.

With commentary by Professor William Hubbard. Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is a leading authority on freedom of speech and religion, the relation of individual rights to government structure, originalism, and various other aspects of constitutional history and constitutional law. He is author of numerous articles and co-author of two casebooks: The Constitution of the United States (Foundation Press) and Religion and the Constitution (Aspen). He is co-editor of Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought (Yale Univ. Press). Since 1996, he has been a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Presented on November 15, 2016, by the Christian Legal Society, the St. Thomas More Society, and the Federalist Society.

Why make a big deal out of intellectual diversity in academia, anyway? What are its advantages? What are its disadvantages? Is it a goal worth pursuing at the expense of others? Dean Larry Kramer and Professor Michael McConnell debate these points and others. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dean Larry Kramer, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Lecturer in Law and Former Dean, Stanford Law School and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Moderator: Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Shelia Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.

The Stephen R. Volk '57 Lecture "Whatever Happened to Freedom of Association?" by Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Stanford Constitutional Law Center, Stanford University. Co-sponsored with the Dartmouth Legal Studies Faculty Group, the Dartmouth Lawyers Association, and Dartmouth Alumni Relations.