Podcast appearances and mentions of John S Baker

Much has been written, published and broadcast about a Divided America—especially now, with the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.Political divisions, often bitter, however, have existed since the Founding. But how can we know whether the so-called Divided America is something new, something traditional that has become more noticeable due to the ease of spreading information, or maybe a combination of the two? Join us for a special webinar presentation from Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityModerator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The third panel covered "Liberty and Constitutional Architecture."11:15 a.m.Panel III: Liberty and Constitutional ArchitectureProf. John S. Baker, Jr., Louisiana State University Law CenterProf. Douglas Laycock, University of Texas School of LawProf. Geoffrey P. Miller, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 62, 63, 65, and 66, which discuss the United States Senate.The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.Featuring:- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 52, 55, 56, and 57, which discuss the House of Representatives.The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.Featuring:- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 47, 48, and 51, which discuss the Constitution's separation of governmental powers.The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.Featuring:- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

Some argue that the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) presents interesting questions about how to resolve trade and investment disputes. The USMCA, which is the new incarnation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), presents crucial constitutional issues concerning the Appointments Clause, the jurisdiction of the federal courts, due process and jury trial rights. For example, do the USMCA’s binational dispute settlement panels bind the United States as a matter of domestic law? Is it permissible that the administrative agency-type panels’ decisions are generally not reviewable by an Article III court? As important as the USMCA might be for trade and investment flow, few are arguing that the interests of American sovereignty be sacrificed. Our speakers will address these issues.Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityDr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Some argue that the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) presents interesting questions about how to resolve trade and investment disputes. The USMCA, which is the new incarnation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), presents crucial constitutional issues concerning the Appointments Clause, the jurisdiction of the federal courts, due process and jury trial rights. For example, do the USMCA’s binational dispute settlement panels bind the United States as a matter of domestic law? Is it permissible that the administrative agency-type panels’ decisions are generally not reviewable by an Article III court? As important as the USMCA might be for trade and investment flow, few are arguing that the interests of American sovereignty be sacrificed. Our speakers will address these issues.Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityDr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLPModerator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLPModerator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

The Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in that state to collect and revoke taxes for goods sold or shipped into the state. The Court affirmed this holding in 1992 and 2015. However, in 2015, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion asking whether the Court should continue following precedent in light of additional dormant Commerce Clause cases and the recent significant technological and social changes that affect interstate commerce.In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law 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.

The Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in that state to collect and revoke taxes for goods sold or shipped into the state. The Court affirmed this holding in 1992 and 2015. However, in 2015, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion asking whether the Court should continue following precedent in light of additional dormant Commerce Clause cases and the recent significant technological and social changes that affect interstate commerce.In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 26, the Commerce Department announced that the 2020 census will include a question about U.S. citizenship. The Commerce Department was acting in response to a December request from the Justice Department to include the question for the stated purpose of better enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 17 state attorneys general and 7 cities filed a lawsuit on April 3 against the federal government claiming that the citizenship question would depress the number of responses from noncitizens, therefore unconstitutionally decreasing the population count used to determine representation in Congress for states with high non-citizen populations. Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. Visiting Professor of Georgetown Law will join us to discuss recent developments.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 26, the Commerce Department announced that the 2020 census will include a question about U.S. citizenship. The Commerce Department was acting in response to a December request from the Justice Department to include the question for the stated purpose of better enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 17 state attorneys general and 7 cities filed a lawsuit on April 3 against the federal government claiming that the citizenship question would depress the number of responses from noncitizens, therefore unconstitutionally decreasing the population count used to determine representation in Congress for states with high non-citizen populations. Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. Visiting Professor of Georgetown Law will join us to discuss recent developments.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law 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.

Southern Sense is conservative talk with Annie "The Radio Chick" Ubelis, as host and "CS" Bennett, co-host. Informative, fun, irreverent and politically incorrect, you never know where we'll go, but you'll love the journey! Southern-Sense.comDr. John S. Baker, Jr. is author of How To Get Illegals To Go Home. Dr. Baker is a member of The Federalist Society, President and Chairman of The Foundation For Self Government, and Professor Emeritus at the Louisiana State University Law Center. selfgovfree.orgMaria Espinoza, Founder of The Remembrance Project. A Voice For The Victims Of Illegal Aliens. The Remembrance Project is an anti-illegal immigration American non-profit organization based in Houston, Texas. In particular, it maintains a list of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants in the United States. http://theremembranceproject.org/Dedication: Deputy Sheriff Daniel A. McCartney, Pierce County Sheriff's Department, WashingtonEnd of Watch Monday, January 8, 2018

Southern Sense is conservative talk with Annie "The Radio Chick" Ubelis, as host and "CS" Bennett, co-host.  Informative, fun, irreverent and politically incorrect, you never know where we'll go, but you'll love the journey!   Southern-Sense.comDr. John S. Baker, Jr. is author of How To Get Illegals To Go Home. Dr. Baker is a member of The Federalist Society, President and Chairman of The Foundation For Self Government, and Professor Emeritus at the Louisiana State University Law Center. selfgovfree.orgMaria Espinoza, Founder of The Remembrance Project.  A Voice For The Victims Of Illegal Aliens.  The Remembrance Project is an anti-illegal immigration American non-profit organization based in Houston, Texas. In particular, it maintains a list of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants in the United States.  http://theremembranceproject.org/Dedication: Deputy Sheriff Daniel A. McCartney, Pierce County Sheriff's Department, WashingtonEnd of Watch Monday, January 8, 2018

Southern Sense is conservative talk with Annie "The Radio Chick" Ubelis, as host and "CS" Bennett, co-host. Informative, fun, irreverent and politically incorrect, you never know where we'll go, but you'll love the journey! Southern-Sense.comDr. John S. Baker, Jr. is author of How To Get Illegals To Go Home. Dr. Baker is a member of The Federalist Society, President and Chairman of The Foundation For Self Government, and Professor Emeritus at the Louisiana State University Law Center. selfgovfree.orgMaria Espinoza, Founder of The Remembrance Project. A Voice For The Victims Of Illegal Aliens. The Remembrance Project is an anti-illegal immigration American non-profit organization based in Houston, Texas. In particular, it maintains a list of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants in the United States. http://theremembranceproject.org/Dedication: Deputy Sheriff Daniel A. McCartney, Pierce County Sheriff's Department, WashingtonEnd of Watch Monday, January 8, 2018

Southern Sense is conservative talk with Annie "The Radio Chick" Ubelis, as host and "CS" Bennett, co-host.  Informative, fun, irreverent and politically incorrect, you never know where we'll go, but you'll love the journey!   Southern-Sense.com Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. is author of How To Get Illegals To Go Home. Dr. Baker is a member of The Federalist Society, President and Chairman of The Foundation For Self Government, and Professor Emeritus at the Louisiana State University Law Center. selfgovfree.org Maria Espinoza, Founder of The Remembrance Project.  A Voice For The Victims Of Illegal Aliens.  The Remembrance Project is an anti-illegal immigration American non-profit organization based in Houston, Texas. In particular, it maintains a list of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants in the United States.  http://theremembranceproject.org/ Dedication: Deputy Sheriff Daniel A. McCartney, Pierce County Sheriff's Department, Washington End of Watch Monday, January 8, 2018

Dr. John S. Baker Jr. is a member of The Federalist Society, President and Chairman of The Foundation For Self Government, and Professor Emeritus at the Louisiana State University Law Center. He is also the author of How To Get Illegals To Go Home and he will stop in to discuss the book and his thoughts on illegal immigration. "The key to a long life of mental acuity depends, in part, on how secure a person feels about getting older in the first place. New research published Feb. 7th, 2018 in the Public Library of Science supports the idea that cultural constructs around how people perceive age contribute to the development of dementia. People who associate old age with uselessness or senility are more likely to develop dementia than people who associate it with positive attributes, such as wisdom and respect. Dan Perkins, contributor to DailyCaller.com, Lifezette.com, ClashDaily.com, DailySurge.com, and TheHill.com., drops by to discuss that and his book Why Can't Grammy Remember Me?. And don't forget about the Edwards Notebook and the Veteran's Tip of the Day! All of this and more as time allows. Listen live, join the chatroom, be a part of the show.

We have seen two consecutive years of an alarming increase in violent crime, at least in some major urban areas. This comes after an entire generation of decreasing crime, to the point that crime rates are half what they were in the early 1990's. Why has crime started to rise again, and what should be done about it? Are incarceration rates a factor?Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterMs. Heather Childs, Vice President & Compliance Counsel, Capital OneMr. Adam Gelb, Director, Public Safety Performance Project, The Pew Charitable TrustsHon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and former United States Attorney GeneralMr. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLPModerator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

We have seen two consecutive years of an alarming increase in violent crime, at least in some major urban areas. This comes after an entire generation of decreasing crime, to the point that crime rates are half what they were in the early 1990's. Why has crime started to rise again, and what should be done about it? Are incarceration rates a factor?Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterMs. Heather Childs, Vice President & Compliance Counsel, Capital OneMr. Adam Gelb, Director, Public Safety Performance Project, The Pew Charitable TrustsHon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and former United States Attorney GeneralMr. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLPModerator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

Nation-states have long fought wars for control of oil. In a novel development, American states are now fighting a war over control of oil—not with one state attempting to take oil from another, but with some states attempting to deny its use to other states. In 2015, New York’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, began an investigation of ExxonMobil. Then, at a news conference held in New York City on March 29, 2016, Schneiderman said that he and a group of other attorneys general were looking at “creative legal theories” to bring about “the beginning of the end of our addiction to fossil fuel.” The group is comprised of seventeen attorneys general, representing fifteen states, the District of Columbia, and one territory. Opposing these attorneys general from mostly “blue states” are attorneys general from twenty-seven mostly “red states.” Professor Baker joined us to discuss his article: "Warning to Corporate Counsel: If State AGs Can Do This to ExxonMobil, How Safe Is Your Company?" -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Ph.D., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center & Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center.

Justice Scalia often said that, while he always tried to get the Bill of Rights cases correct, he cared most about the structural constitutional cases. Once or twice each summer, he even taught a course called Separation of Powers. His opinions on the structural issues of separation of powers and federalism often cited The Federalist Papers. He routinely urged law students and lawyers to read the whole of The Federalist. The authors of the Federalist Papers placed primordial importance on separated powers, both among branches of the federal government and between federal and state governments. With the separation of powers both horizontal and vertical increasingly in doubt, it is particularly important to understand the Federalist's treatment of constitutional structure. This panel, therefore, looks at Justice Scalia's Federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism as structural protections of liberty. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Hon. Ron DeSantis, U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District; Mr. Roger Pilon, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Cato Institute; Hon. Luther Strange III, Attorney General, Alabama; and Prof. 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 School. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently increased its use of administrative proceedings, before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), to seek civil penalties, as an alternative to proceeding in an Article III court. Other federal regulatory and enforcement agencies use ALJs for various purposes at various rates. Although no single set of rules governs all ALJs, they typically differ from Article III courts in important ways, bringing their use under recent criticism. As two examples, ALJs do not enjoy life tenure and they are sometimes employed by and answerable to the agency itself. Our panel will discuss the pros and cons of the use of ALJs at the SEC and other agencies. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, Shareholder, Murphy & McGonigle PC; Prof. Todd E. Pettys, H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation, University of Iowa College of Law; and Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission.