Podcast appearances and mentions of John O Mcginnis

No one maintains that the Court has always and forever been originalist in its orientation. By any definition of "originalism," there is a vast body of case law that does not conform to it.How do and should modern originalists - and here one might specifically include lower-court judges who consider themselves originalist - handle this case law? Do non-originalist precedents count for nothing, no matter the expectations built upon them? If they count, how much do they count? Given the interconnectedness of the Constitution's provisions and structure, does it make sense to be "originalist" in some respects and some contexts but not others? Does originalism itself provide means to answer, or even address, these questions or does one necessarily have to step outside originalism to establish its relationship to precedent?Featuring:Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawProf. Randy Kozel, Fritz Duda Family Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Gary Lawson, William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitOverflow: Chinese Room

John O. McGinnis joins Brian C. Anderson to discuss identity politics' influence on law schools and the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling.

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

Ronie Berggren samtalar med svensk-amerikanen Magnus Eriksson om juridikprofessorn John O. McGinnis artikel ”Law, Betrayed: Identity's triumph over argument in legal education undermines democracy" (https://www.city-journal.org/article/law-betrayed?), om hur den vänsterliberala sekterismen inom USA:s juristutbildningar gestaltar sig, och hur den undergräver den amerikanska demokratin. --------- STÖD AMERIKANSKA NYHETSANALYSER: http://usapol.blogspot.com/p/stod-oss-support-us.html

George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University School of Law and City Journal contributing editor John O. McGinnis joins Brian C. Anderson to discuss the results of Chicago's mayoral election.

Here We Go Again              Today:  Sports, transgenderism and stupidity.  The US Supreme Court refused to allow West Virginia to enforce a state law banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools.  Then, John O. McGinnis with the City Journal says Chicago's next mayor is worse than the current one.  Later, Jeff Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute, asks if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could win the Democratic nomination for president.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Theories of originalism and living constitutionalism currently vie for approval in the courts. Originalists find that popular sovereignty can only come from ratification and legislation. Living constitutionalists fear binding the living by the votes of the dead. What would Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton think of this debate? Did the founding era public expect the original public meaning to control interpretive debates? Were the American Founders themselves originalists? In a related question, the panel will also explore the usefulness of The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist essays as interpretive tools for identifying the original public meaning of the Bill of Rights. Just how persuasive are the Anti-Federalist concerns considering their position was ultimately lost and the Constitution was ratified? How much did the “losing” arguments contribute to the original public meaning and what light do the founding era debates shed on the proper tools for constitutional interpretation? Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable William H. Pryor, United States Court of Appeals Eleventh CircuitProf. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale UniversityProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Northwestern University law professor John O. McGinnis joins Brian Anderson to discuss the Chicago Teachers Union's push for remote learning, the political geography of the Windy City, and whether Chicagoans can hope for better governance. Find the transcript of this conversation and more at City Journal.

Northwestern University law professor John O. McGinnis joins Brian Anderson to discuss the Chicago Teachers Union's push for remote learning, the political geography of the Windy City, and whether Chicagoans can hope for better governance.

John O. McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He also has an MA degree from Balliol College, Oxford, in philosophy and theology. Professor McGinnis clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. John is the author of Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Government Through Technology and co-author of Originalism and the Good Constitution.John discusses his recent article for Law & Liberty entitled, “’Poetic Truths’ are Everywhere.” This is a comparison of the hit show “The Crown” and a documentary called “What Killed Michael Brown?”. Both were trying to assert their views, both with two different approaches. “The Crown” used historical events mixed with fabricated occurrences to express their views. It is a hit series with many believing how events were portrayed are actually true. By comparison, “What Killed Michael Brown?” is a documentary that presents the evidence and providing commentary. This was initially resisted by Amazon as “controversial” (as if they avoid controversy or something). It is as if no one wants to hear the truth, but want to live in fantasy. Philip Sharp in his essay talks about the one voice of persuasion. Ever pay attention and notice that there is practically one message and it is injected into every form of media and entertainment? This is more like collusion than expression, and is indicative that maybe the land of the free is in trouble.

John O. McGinnis joins Brian Anderson to discuss the economic condition of Illinois, the main players in its infamous "machine" politics, the recent looting in Chicago that tore through the city's Magnificent Mile, and more.

Ballot box voting is often considered the essence of political freedom. But it has two major shortcomings: individual voters have little chance of making a difference, and they also face strong incentives to remain ignorant about the issues at stake. "Voting with your feet," however, avoids both of these pitfalls and offers a wider range of choices. In his new book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press), Ilya Somin argues that broadening opportunities for foot voting can greatly enhance political liberty for millions of people around the world.People can vote with their feet through international migration, by choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector. These three types of foot voting are rarely considered together, but Somin explains how they have important common virtues and can be mutually reinforcing. He contends that all forms of foot voting should be expanded and shows how both domestic constitutions and international law can be structured to increase opportunities for foot voting while mitigating possible downsides.Somin addresses a variety of common objections to expanded migration rights, including claims that the "self-determination" of natives requires giving them the power to exclude migrants, and arguments that migration is likely to have harmful side effects, such as undermining political institutions, overburdening the welfare state, and increasing crime and terrorism. While these objections are usually directed at international migration, Somin explains how, if taken seriously, they would also justify severe restrictions on domestic freedom of movement. By making a systematic case for a more open world, Free to Move challenges conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. Featuring: -- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Author, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom-- Moderator: Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Ballot box voting is often considered the essence of political freedom. But it has two major shortcomings: individual voters have little chance of making a difference, and they also face strong incentives to remain ignorant about the issues at stake. "Voting with your feet," however, avoids both of these pitfalls and offers a wider range of choices. In his new book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press), Ilya Somin argues that broadening opportunities for foot voting can greatly enhance political liberty for millions of people around the world.People can vote with their feet through international migration, by choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector. These three types of foot voting are rarely considered together, but Somin explains how they have important common virtues and can be mutually reinforcing. He contends that all forms of foot voting should be expanded and shows how both domestic constitutions and international law can be structured to increase opportunities for foot voting while mitigating possible downsides.Somin addresses a variety of common objections to expanded migration rights, including claims that the "self-determination" of natives requires giving them the power to exclude migrants, and arguments that migration is likely to have harmful side effects, such as undermining political institutions, overburdening the welfare state, and increasing crime and terrorism. While these objections are usually directed at international migration, Somin explains how, if taken seriously, they would also justify severe restrictions on domestic freedom of movement. By making a systematic case for a more open world, Free to Move challenges conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. Featuring: -- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Author, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom-- Moderator: Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The fourth panel discussed "Blockchain-Backed Cryptocurrencies: Order Without Law in the Digital Age".In the wake of skyrocketing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices, the SEC has argued that cryptocurrencies should be regulated as securities. Yet, many of those responsible for developing cryptocurrencies view them as an efficient, reliable way of storing and exchanging value without government interference or regulation. This panel will discuss the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will play a meaningful role in the global economy, and if and how they should be regulated.Ms. Mary Beth Buchanan, General Counsel, Kraken Cryptocurrency ExchangeMr. Jim Harper, Former Executive Vice President, Competitive Enterprise InstituteProf. Gary Marchant, Regent’s Professor of Law and Director for the Center for Law, Science and Innovation, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The fourth panel discussed "Blockchain-Backed Cryptocurrencies: Order Without Law in the Digital Age".In the wake of skyrocketing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices, the SEC has argued that cryptocurrencies should be regulated as securities. Yet, many of those responsible for developing cryptocurrencies view them as an efficient, reliable way of storing and exchanging value without government interference or regulation. This panel will discuss the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will play a meaningful role in the global economy, and if and how they should be regulated.Ms. Mary Beth Buchanan, General Counsel, Kraken Cryptocurrency ExchangeMr. Jim Harper, Former Executive Vice President, Competitive Enterprise InstituteProf. Gary Marchant, Regent’s Professor of Law and Director for the Center for Law, Science and Innovation, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

I was careful not to be too dour in my “Progress Report for Liberty: 2018,” noting that many subtle victories for liberty were achieved at the state level while the vitriol of national politics raged around us like a storm. Classical liberals should be cheerful about the ongoing reforms to our drug laws, the forward march of technology, and some notably positive developments in the Supreme Court (including the landmark decision of Janus v. AFSCME).However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution (among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to “protect” Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls “the Cult of the Presidency,” and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President's recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude:

The advent of very powerful computers and the Internet have not “changed everything,” but it has created a new communications context within which almost everything we do will be somewhat changed. One of the “things we do” is governance, that is, the way we organize ourselves politically and, as a result of that organization, provide for the individual and public good. In his fascinating book Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology (Princeton UP, 2013), John O. McGinnis examines the promise and peril of advanced computation and Internet communications for our democracy. The former (promise), he says, is great if we think deeply about the impact of the new media on politics and public policy. He proposed that we take the bull by the horns and experiment with new technology so that governance can become both more democratic and more efficient. He suggests a number of ways in which the potential of the new media can be made to do just this. Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The advent of very powerful computers and the Internet have not “changed everything,” but it has created a new communications context within which almost everything we do will be somewhat changed. One of the “things we do” is governance, that is, the way we organize ourselves politically and, as a result of that organization, provide for the individual and public good. In his fascinating book Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology (Princeton UP, 2013), John O. McGinnis examines the promise and peril of advanced computation and Internet communications for our democracy. The former (promise), he says, is great if we think deeply about the impact of the new media on politics and public policy. He proposed that we take the bull by the horns and experiment with new technology so that governance can become both more democratic and more efficient. He suggests a number of ways in which the potential of the new media can be made to do just this. Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The advent of very powerful computers and the Internet have not “changed everything,” but it has created a new communications context within which almost everything we do will be somewhat changed. One of the “things we do” is governance, that is, the way we organize ourselves politically and, as a result of that organization, provide for the individual and public good. In his fascinating book Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology (Princeton UP, 2013), John O. McGinnis examines the promise and peril of advanced computation and Internet communications for our democracy. The former (promise), he says, is great if we think deeply about the impact of the new media on politics and public policy. He proposed that we take the bull by the horns and experiment with new technology so that governance can become both more democratic and more efficient. He suggests a number of ways in which the potential of the new media can be made to do just this. Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The advent of very powerful computers and the Internet have not “changed everything,” but it has created a new communications context within which almost everything we do will be somewhat changed. One of the “things we do” is governance, that is, the way we organize ourselves politically and, as a result of that organization, provide for the individual and public good. In his fascinating book Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology (Princeton UP, 2013), John O. McGinnis examines the promise and peril of advanced computation and Internet communications for our democracy. The former (promise), he says, is great if we think deeply about the impact of the new media on politics and public policy. He proposed that we take the bull by the horns and experiment with new technology so that governance can become both more democratic and more efficient. He suggests a number of ways in which the potential of the new media can be made to do just this. Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The advent of very powerful computers and the Internet have not “changed everything,” but it has created a new communications context within which almost everything we do will be somewhat changed. One of the “things we do” is governance, that is, the way we organize ourselves politically and, as a result of that organization, provide for the individual and public good. In his fascinating book Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology (Princeton UP, 2013), John O. McGinnis examines the promise and peril of advanced computation and Internet communications for our democracy. The former (promise), he says, is great if we think deeply about the impact of the new media on politics and public policy. He proposed that we take the bull by the horns and experiment with new technology so that governance can become both more democratic and more efficient. He suggests a number of ways in which the potential of the new media can be made to do just this. Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The advent of very powerful computers and the Internet have not “changed everything,” but it has created a new communications context within which almost everything we do will be somewhat changed. One of the “things we do” is governance, that is, the way we organize ourselves politically and, as a...