Podcasts about law emeritus

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

In these first months of his second term, President Trump has fired or attempted to fire thousands upon thousands of federal workers.  Notable among those affected by this unprecedented flexing of executive authority are leaders of independent agencies.  Peter Shane joins Lindsay Langholz to discuss two recent cases that have significant implications on our system of checks and balances and just how far the president is allowed to go when it comes to control over independent agencies.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Peter Shane, Distinguished Scholar in Residence and Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.Link:  Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions, Just SecurityLink:  LawfareLink: Does Evidence Matter? Originalism and the Separation of Powers, by Cass SunsteinLink: The Supreme Court's Fed Carveout: An Initial Assessment, by Lev MenandVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

During President Donald Trump's first months in office, he signed more than 120 executive orders. The Financial Times reports that more than 100 legal challenges have been filed against these, including by federal judges.Former president Joe Biden signed 162 orders during his 4-year term. During Trump's term from 2017 to 2021, he signed 220 orders.In eight years, Barack Obama signed 277 and George W. Bush signed 291.Tensions between the executive and judicial branches have come as the executive orders extend presidential power, including in cases involving deportation without due process, freedom of speech, state's rights, elections, federal aid, governmental operations, and federal governmental regulation.Some of Trump's orders– like firing of federal workers based on recommendations of the Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency– have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.Others, like altering birthright citizenship and banning transgender people in the military, have been blocked by multiple federal judges.It's not unusual for the judicial branch to prevent oversteps in executive power. A Supreme Court vote blocked former President Barack Obama's executive orders to grant legal status to four million immigrants who had lived in the US for more than five years in 2016.But legal experts say the number of orders issued, their scope, and the number that have been challenged are unusual.Different political analysts and court experts have issued opinions about whether the United States is in a constitutional crisis. Google Trends indicates public interest in the issue has increased since January.This week, we'll ask legal experts for their analysis on the balance of governmental powers and the impact of recent executive actions on constitutional rights.On this week's Noon Edition, we'll host a discussion about the perceived threats to the Constitution and civil liberties by the Trump administration and the state of Indiana.This Noon Edition will be held at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. This event is free and open to the public. Guests should arrive to Room 121 by 11:30am for the live hour-long radio broadcast beginning at noon.Call-in questions will not be available during this episode, but we'll take questions from the audience in attendance as well as through email at news@indianapublicmedia.org.GuestsSteve Sanders, Professor of Law at Indiana University and constitutional scholarChristopher Daley, executive director of the ACLU of IndianaDaniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus at Indiana University

Guest: Peter M. Shane is the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at Ohio State University and a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the New York University School of Law. He is the author of several books including, Democracy's Chief Executive: Interpreting the Constitution and Defining the Future of the Presidency and the host of “Democracy's Chief Executive: The Podcast.”  Peter Shane: @petermshane. The post The Expansion of the Presidential Power appeared first on KPFA.

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School, about Environmental Law, Hard Work, and Whooping Cranes.  Read his full bio below.Thank you to Vermont Law and Graduate School for sponsoring. "Vermont Law and Graduate School is one of the top environmental law schools in the U.S. and is nationally renowned in climate change law, restorative justice, criminal law, and clinical education." Learn more at www.vermontlaw.eduHelp us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Patrick Parenteau at https://www.vermontlaw.edu/faculty/parenteau-patGuest Bio:Patrick A. Parenteau is Emeritus Professor of Law and Senior Fellow for Climate Policy in the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School. He previously served as Director of the Environmental Law Center and was the founding director of the EAC (formerly the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic) in 2004.Professor Parenteau has an extensive background in environmental and natural resources law. His previous positions include Vice President for Conservation with the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, DC (1976-1984); Regional Counsel to the New England Regional Office of the EPA in Boston (1984-1987); Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (1987-1989); and Senior Counsel with the Perkins Coie law firm in Portland, Oregon (1989-1993).Professor Parenteau has been involved in drafting, litigating, implementing, teaching, and writing about environmental law and policy for over three decades. His current focus is on confronting the profound challenges of climate change through his teaching, publishing, public speaking and litigation.Professor Parenteau is a Fulbright US Scholar and a Fellow in the American College of Environmental Lawyers. In 2005 he received the National Wildlife Federation's Conservation Achievement Award in recognition of his contributions to wildlife conservation and environmental education. In 2016 he received the Kerry Rydberg Award for excellence in public interest environmental law.Professor Parenteau holds a B.S. from Regis University, a J.D. from Creighton University, and an LLM in Environmental Law from the George Washington U.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

Sara Netanyahu’s lawyer has sent a letter to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and State Prosecutor Amit Aisman warning them not to open a probe into allegations that the prime minister’s wife had sought to intimidate a witness and interfere in the corruption case against her husband. Baharav-Miara and Aisman ordered police on Thursday to open a probe following a Channel 12 investigative report on the Uvda program. In a letter to the legal officials, Netanyahu’s lawyer Uriel Hor Nizri claimed that they were acting against his client for “personal reasons” and that opening an investigation would be “illegal.” KAN's Mark Weiss spoke with Mordechai Kremnitzer , a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute and a Professor of Law Emeritus at Jerusalem's Hebrew university and asked him about the allegations against Sara Netanyahu and the ongoing campaign by ministers to oust the Attorney General. (Photo:Flash90)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

RESOLVED: That Congress Can Ban TikTokFeaturing:Mr. Miguel Estrada, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Mr. Patrick Philbin, Partner, Torridon Law PLLCModerator: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law

On July 25, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state officials to start removing homeless encampments across the state. This follows last month's SCOTUS ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, where the high court ruled that they will allow cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. According to a 2023 homelessness assessment report to Congress from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, California has the largest homeless population in the nation with more than 180,000 people out on the streets.  In this episode, Craig is joined by returning guest Gary Blasi, Professor of Law Emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, as they discuss Governor Newsom's executive order for removal of homeless encampments in California. Craig & Gary discuss the order, the recent SCOTUS decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and the potential impact this could have on the homeless community. Mentioned in this episode: Governor Newsom's Executive Order on Encampments   City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Scotus Ruling  The Legal Issues Surrounding Homelessness with Gary Blasi & Breanne Schuster on Lawyer2Lawyer

On July 25, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state officials to start removing homeless encampments across the state. This follows last month's SCOTUS ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, where the high court ruled that they will allow cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. According to a 2023 homelessness assessment report to Congress from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, California has the largest homeless population in the nation with more than 180,000 people out on the streets.  In this episode, Craig is joined by returning guest Gary Blasi, Professor of Law Emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, as they discuss Governor Newsom's executive order for removal of homeless encampments in California. Craig & Gary discuss the order, the recent SCOTUS decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and the potential impact this could have on the homeless community. Mentioned in this episode: Governor Newsom's Executive Order on Encampments   City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Scotus Ruling  The Legal Issues Surrounding Homelessness with Gary Blasi & Breanne Schuster on Lawyer2Lawyer

How might the example of Christ as a servant shape the field of law and those who have made justice their profession? These is the types of questions Robert Cochran addresses in his most recent book titled The Servant Lawyer: Facing the Challenges of Christian Faith in Everyday Law Practice. Listen in as Bob shares insights from his career, encourages Christians working in this field, and frames the importance of law for the common good. Robert F. Cochran Jr. is the Brandeis Professor of Law Emeritus at Pepperdine University and a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. Following law school, he clerked for Judge John A. Field on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and practiced with the law firm of Boyle & Bain in Charlottesville, Virginia.   Resources:  Check out Bob Cochran's book The Servant Lawyer.

Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law Emeritus at Emory Law, associated professor in the Emory College of Arts and Sciences, and senior fellow of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion of Emory University. A world-renowned scholar of Islam and human rights and human rights in cross-cultural perspectives, An-Na'im teaches courses in international law, comparative law, human rights, and Islamic law. His research interests include constitutionalism in Islamic and African countries, secularism, Islam and politics and human rights. Our conversation was inspired by his latest book, Decolonizing Human Rights, which challenges both historical interpretations of Islamic Sharia and neocolonial understanding of human rights. Abdullahi proposes a transformation from human rights organised around state-determined practice to one that is focused on what he calls a “people-centric” approach that empowers individuals to decide how human rights will be understood and integrated into their communities. This argument serves as the starting point for our conversation on the complexities, paradoxes and cultural dimensions that challenge a traditional Western perspective on human rights and invites inquiry into what a decolonized, culturally-inclusive alternative might look like. Abdullahi's official profile can be found here: https://law.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-emeritus/annaim-emeritus-profile.html We discussed: Decolonizing Human Rights, 2021: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/decolonizing-human-rights/decolonizing-human-rights/1A39889DEDE614E07D18FFF988BF085F Human Rights and its Inherent Liberal Relativism, 2019: https://goldsmithspress.pubpub.org/pub/v1c6tsos/release/1 Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest for Consensus, 2010: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/340

Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has grown, as wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex weddings pursuant to their consciences. On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which held that the free speech clause prohibits a state from forcing a website designer to create messages with which the designer disagrees. That said, the Court has yet to issue a clear decision that resolves these issues under the free exercise clause, even though wedding vendors almost invariably object to providing services on religious grounds. Indeed, when the free exercise question was addressed in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court largely punted on the issue and resolved the case on very narrow procedural grounds.Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.Featuring: Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of LawJonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee

Why should climate risk be singled out for mandatory disclosure by the SEC, and how does this change the investment landscape? Can climate disclosure legislation walk the fine line between transparency and information overload? In this episode, hosts and finance professors Jonathan Berk and Jules van Binsbergen welcome Lawrence Cunningham, Research Professor of Law Emeritus at GW Law and special counsel with Mayer Brown LLP, to explore the arguments for and against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandating climate risk disclosures for companies. Submit your questions to the show here: https://bit.ly/AllElseEqual Find All Else Equal on the web: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/business-podcasts/all-else-equal-making-better-decisions All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions Podcast is a production of Stanford Graduate School of Business and is produced by University FM. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Joel Goldstein is the Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law Emeritus at SLU and expert on the vice presidency. He gave his thoughts on VP Harris and the possible GOP VP nominee.

Ali Velshi is joined by NBC News' Matt Bradley, Senior Legal Affairs Reporter at Politico Josh Gerstein, Professor of Law at Emory University Fred Smith, Jr., President and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Noah Bookbinder, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele, MSNBC Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent at Lawfare Anna Bower, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law Emeritus at Emory University Morgan Cloud, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, Senior Reporter at NBC News Brandy Zadrozny

Donald Trump is the subject of our book club today. Trump is not known to be a big reader or even an author – his most popular book Art of the Deal, was ghost written by Tony Schwarz, as you probably know. Nevertheless, our book club episode today focuses on him. Not a book, but on the day he got booked up in Georgia. We recorded this episode on Thursday, August 24th, just hours before Mr. Trump was scheduled to surrender at a jail in Georgia.  He will be there to answer to thirteen charges brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for racketeering and more in connection with his failed efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Joining Jen is Jill Wine-Banks and Morgan Cloud. Jill is an author, MSNBC legal analyst, and podcast host. Jill was the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.. Just four years later, she was selected to be an Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. You should read The Watergate Girl: My Fight for Truth and Justice Against a Criminal President to learn about that experience. Jill was also in the Organized Crime Section at Justice when the federal Rackeeteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) passed. Morgan is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law Emeritus, located in Atlanta, Georgia. Morgan has been working with RICO statutes since 1975, because Bob Blakey, the primary architect of the original federal statute, was his teacher and boss in law school. Before joining the Emory faculty, he was a trial lawyer and litigator in Florida and California, litigating cases throughout the United States. He writes and teaches about white collar crime, constitutional criminal procedure, and digital privacy. In addition to publishing in prestigious academic journals, Prof. Cloud has also taught courses in Germany, Hungary and France. Contact Booked Up: You can email Jen & the Booked Up team at: BOOKEDUP@POLITICON.COM or by writing to:  BOOKED UP  P.O. BOX 147 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 Get More from Jill Wine-Banks Twitter | Website | Author of THE WATERGATE GIRL: My Fight for Truth and Justice Against a Criminal President Get More from Morgan Cloud Website | Politics War Room Get More from Jen Taub: Twitter| Money & Gossip  Substack | Author of BIG DIRTY MONEY 

The Government Law Center at Albany Law School hosted the third program of the 2023 Warren M. Anderson Legislative Series on April 25. Panelists discussed the constitutional and legal issues related to the powers of the Governor of New York State in times of emergency.   Panelists: Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq. – Partner at Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, LLP, and former Counsel to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Peter J. Kiernan, Esq. – Chair of the New York Law Revision Commission; Senior Counsel at Venable LLP; and former Counsel to Governor David A. Paterson Prof. Robert F. Williams – Former Director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies and Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers Law School   Moderator: Prof. Leonard M. Cutler – Director of the Center for the Study of Government and Politics and Professor of Political Science at Siena College   Series Sponsors: A contribution made in the memory of Sharon P. O'Connor, Esq. '79 Greenberg Traurig LLP   Program Sponsors: Hinman Straub P.C. Lippes Mathias LLP About the Warren M. Anderson Series: https://www.albanylaw.edu/government-law-center/warren-m-anderson-series

In the latest episode of Second Request, Teddy interviews Bob Lande on the impact of textualism on merger analysis. Bob Lande is Venable Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a board member for the American Antitrust Institute who has written about the use of textualism in antitrust enforcement and the way it affects statutory interpretation in a recent article for the Utah Law Review and a presentation to the FTC.Due to its emphasis on “precise language,” Bob argues that rather than leading to more conservative antitrust decision making by the courts, textualism should lead to the exact opposite: “Textualism should lead, if anything, to more aggressive antitrust enforcement….This is because the Sherman Act, the FTC Act and the Clayton Act are all products of the progressive era. It's not surprising that their precise language is very pro-consumer and very anti-monopoly.”Listen to the podcast to hear Teddy and Bob discuss:• Section 7 language• The express efficiencies defense• Monopolization

The coalition is pushing ahead with its controversial judicial overhaul despite Tuesday's nationwide Day of Disruption by opponents  who claim the move will undermine Israeli democracy. The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee convened on Wednesday to continue  preparing the grounds of reasonability bill for its second and third readings in the Knesset plenum.  Mordechai Kremnitzer is a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute  and a Professor of Law Emeritus at Jerusalem's Hebrew University. KAN's Mark Weiss asked him why cancelling the reasonableness clause was so problematic. (Avshalom Sasoni/Flash90)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Florida state government has enacted multiple laws in recent years that censor what can and cannot be taught and discussed in the classroom. Taonga Leslie speaks with Kenneth Nunn about the experience of teaching about race in Florida. They discuss the consequences for teachers, students, and society when critical discussions of race are censored, strategies for countering such censorship, and some of the silver linings from what is happening right now.   Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Taonga Leslie, ACS Director of Policy and Program for Racial Justice Guest: Kenneth Nunn, Professor of Law Emeritus, UF Law Link: "Florida's fight against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," by Chuck Hobbs Link: "Recent UF academic freedom infringements follow trend of collusion against faculty, professors say," by April Rubin Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2023.

There has been much discussion about threats to democracy over the past year. But conceptions of democracy differ. What does democracy entail in our system? Is the U.S. a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic? What does democracy require and what genuinely threatens it? How do we address such threats?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and Assistant Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of LawProf. Bruce E. Cain, Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities & Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford UniversityProf. Daniel Lowenstein, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA LawProf. Stephen I. Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, The University of Texas School of Law

This engaging history overturns the conventional wisdom about the Second Amendment--showing that the right to bear arms was not about protecting liberty but about preserving slavery.In Madison's Militia, Carl Bogus illuminates why James Madison and the First Congress included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. Linking together dramatic accounts of slave uprisings and electric debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, Bogus shows that--contrary to conventional wisdom--the fitting symbol of the Second Amendment is not the musket in the hands of the minuteman on Lexington Green but the musket wielded by a slave patrol member in the South.Bogus begins with a dramatic rendering of the showdown in Virginia between James Madison and his federalist allies, who were arguing for ratification of the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry and the antifederalists, who were arguing against it. Henry accused Madison of supporting a constitution that empowered Congress to disarm the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. The narrative then proceeds to the First Congress, where Madison had to make good a congressional campaign promise to write a Bill of Rights--and seizing that opportunity to solve the problem Henry had raised.Three other collections of stories--on slave insurrections, Revolutionary War battles, and the English Declaration of Rights--are skillfully woven into the narrative and show how arming ragtag militias was never the primary goal of the amendment. And as the puzzle pieces come together, even initially skeptical readers will be surprised by the completed picture: one that forcefully demonstrates that the Second Amendment was intended in the first instance to protect slaveholders from the people they owned.Carl T. Bogus is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the Roger Williams University School of Law in Bristol, Rhode Island. He has also held visiting positions at the George Washington, Drexel, and Rutgers University law schools. He is the author of two previous books--Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism (Bloomsbury Press) and Why Lawsuits Are Good for America: Disciplined Democracy, Big Business, and the Common Law (NYU Press)--and the editor of The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms (The New Press). His writings have appeared in professional journals as well as the New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, The Nation, American Prospect, American Conservative, and other popular venues.Buy the book from Wellington Square Bookshop - ​https://wellingtonsquarebooks.indiecommerce.com/book/9780197632222

No political office is more important than the U.S. presidency in terms of the resources it commands, the responsibilities it bears, and the symbolism it embodies. Over the last half century, Congress and the courts have engaged more significantly than ever in policing the legal and constitutional boundaries of presidential authority. While decisions about the scope of presidential power can result in profound impacts for the American public, the technical issues are often complex and not well understood, sometimes even by political journalists. This podcast offers the promise of publicizing and clarifying these hugely important questions. Joining Peter for each session would be a co-host and one or two interviewees whose scholarly research or professional experience is focused on that episode's topic. If successful in attracting a significant audience, future seasons would likely include episodes with the capacity to intermix timeless topics with conversations of a “ripped-from-the-headlines” feel. Peter is a leading scholar in U.S. constitutional and administrative law, with a special focus on the American presidency and the separation of powers. The University of California Press in May 2022 published Peter's newest book, Democracy's Chief Executive: Interpreting the Constitution and Defining the Future of the Presidency. He is currently a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU Law, where he is teaching constitutional law. He holds the title also of Professor and Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, where he regularly taught courses in constitutional and administrative law, law and the presidency, and subjects at the intersection of law, democracy, and new media.

   Prime Minister Netanyahu fired Shas leader Aryeh Deri Sunday in compliance with the High Court of Justice ruling last week disqualifying Deri from serving as a minister. Netanyahu addressed Deri at the meeting, saying that he intends to “seek any legal way for you to be able to continue to contribute to the State of Israel from your experience and your many skills, in keeping with the public's wishes.” Mordechai Kremnitzer is a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute and a Professor of Law Emeritus at Jerusalem's Hebrew University. KAN's Mark Weiss spoke with him about the government's planned actions against the judicial branch, asking  him first if the plan to allow Deri to continue attending cabinet and security cabinet meetings is legal and within the spirit of last week's High Court ruling.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode, we have an interview of Mr. John Norton Moore, Walter L. Brown Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law, by Major Travis J.Covey, Vice Chair and Professor of Law in the National Security Law Department at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School. The episode is an addendum to the Thirteenth Waldemar A. Solf and Marc L. Warren Chair lecture in National Security Law given to by Mr. Moore at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School.

Steven Salop is a Professor of Economics and Law (Emeritus) at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, where he teaches antitrust law and economics. His research and consulting focuses on antitrust, competition and regulation. He has written numerous articles in various areas of antitrust and competition which take a modern “Post-Chicago” approach.He recently co-wrote a paper with Jennifer E. Sturiale laying out a proposal for how antitrust enforcers and courts can fix "Litigating the Fix."

Explaining the Conflict Issues and the Special Counsel Rules As They Apply in the Justice Department's Investigation of Donald Trump. Stephen Gillers is the Elihu Root Professor of Law Emeritus and Barbara Gillers is an Adjunct Professor of Law, both at New York University School of Law.

Religious employers are exempt under §§ 702(a) and 703(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.2000e—1(a) and 2000e—2(e)(1), when sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. However questions can still arise when Religious employers undertake actions that would allegedly be problematic under Title VII for non-religious employers. What is the scope of the exemption? What is the definition of religion? What is the definition of a religious employer able to invoke the exemption? Additionally, is the exemption waived if the employer is a recipient of federal financial assistance? How does the exemption in Title VII compare with other defenses available to the employer such as the ministerial exception (Church Autonomy Theory), Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment's free-speech and free-exercise clauses? What if the religious employer is sued in a similar claim under a state or municipal human rights act?Experts Sharon Gustafson, Jennifer Goldstein, and Carl Esbeck will discuss some of these questions in this webinar on the extent of exemptions extended to religious employers under Title VII. Featuring:--Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Missouri--Sharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLC--Jennifer Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EVENT DESCRIPTION: Mandatory national service (also called compulsory service) is a requirement that people serve in the military or complete other works of public service for one or two years. The U.S. military draft, created during the Civil War, is one type of mandatory national service. The U.S. has had an all-volunteer military since 1973 when President Nixon ended the draft following the extremely controversial Vietnam War which provoked huge public protests against both the war and the draft. Public opinion is about evenly split among all Americans about mandatory national service. Young adults, who would be required to complete such service, are 39% for and 57% against. The panelists, from the S.J. Quinney College of Law, have all served their countries in the military during periods of national conflict and have diverse views about mandatory national service. Audience members will be polled about their views. PANELISTS: Amos N. Guiora Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, the University of Utah. He is a Distinguished Fellow at The Consortium for the Research and Study of Holocaust and the Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and a Distinguished Fellow and Counselor at the International Center for Conflict Resolution, Katz School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. Guiora is a retired Lt. Col. In the Israel Defense Forces where he served in the Judge Advocate General Corps. James Holbrook James Holbrook is a Clinical Professor of Law Emeritus who taught negotiation, mediation, and arbitration at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. In 1969 he served in combat in Vietnam with the 9th Infantry Division for which service he received the Army Commendation Medal for Valor and a Bronze Star. He is an advisor to the University's Veterans Support Center and is the Manager of Special Projects in the law school's Career Development Office. Leah Bench Leah Bench is a first-year law student at the S.J. Quinney College of Law. She served in the United States Air Force as a Munitions Specialist for four years during which time she received numerous awards and an early promotion. In 2015 she deployed to Guam in the Pacific Theater to support B-52 aircraft. In 2020 she received a Master of Legal Studies degree from the College of Law and is now pursuing a legal career in military law and public policy for veteran support. Mike Meszaros Mike Meszaros is a 2L at the S.J. Quinney College of Law. He graduated from West Point where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in military history with a focus on the U.S. Army's modernization and the transition to the all-volunteer force following the Vietnam War. He was an infantry officer in the Army for nine years during which he served as the Brigade Battle Captain in Nangahar Province in Afghanistan. MODERATOR: Dean Elizabeth Kronk Warner For questions about this event email events@law.utah.edu. This episode was originally broadcast and recorded on November 09, 2022

The Ukrainian people are paying a high price for the massive and costly resistance they are putting up to Russian aggression. Refugees fleeing Ukraine already number in excess of 2 million and counting. Many are Ukrainian Jews. Those who are unable to leave or are engaged in the fight to slow the advance of Russian forces are subject to increasingly indiscriminate bombing and the threat of using more extreme military weaponry. Reports of targeting and killing civilians, including the bombing of hospitals and schools, raise serious questions about human rights violations and war crimes. We invite acclaimed attorney, civil liberties defender and constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz to discuss the actions of Russian forces in Ukraine and the potential case against Russia's military leaders and in particular President Vladimir Putin. Are there legal avenues to pursue in the International Criminal Court or other international bodies, and how might such cases be brought? What other avenues might we explore to tackle this human rights tragedy unfolding on multiple fronts? At this critical moment, Ukraine's President Zelensky is standing up and defending his country and his people. Professor Dershowitz recently has made the case that Zelensky should be recognized immediately on the international stage for his commitment. As an emeritus professor of public law, Dershowitz will be nominating President Zelensky for this year's Nobel Peace Prize and urging the Committee to award it now. As Rabbi Hillel once said: "If not now, when?” Please join Alan Dershowitz, New York Times bestselling author and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School, in conversation with Dan Ashley, news anchor at ABC7 KGO Bay Area, about Ukraine as well as other key civil liberties and human rights issues. SPEAKERS Alan Dershowitz Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus, Harvard Law School In Conversation with Dan Ashley News Anchor/Reporter, ABC7 News, KGO-TV Bay Area In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on March 25th, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire. Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department’s existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar will discuss the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area. Featuring:Jonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesProf. William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law SchoolModerator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA") requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire.Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department's existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar discussed the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area.Featuring:- William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law SchoolJonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; Former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services[Moderator] Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Forest “Jack” Bowman is the Jackson Kelly Professor of Law Emeritus at West Virginia University and a lifelong West Virginian. He taught law at WVU for twenty-three years, during which time he was named “Professor of the Year” by an unprecedented seven graduating classes. In 1988, he was named “Professor of the Year” for all […]

An interview with the Voss-Bascom Professor of Law and Dean of International Studies Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, David Trubek and the Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at UCLA Law, Richard Abel. 
Profs Trubek and Abel discuss their recent symposium, “The Short Happy Life of the Yale Program in Law and Modernization: From the Cold War to Comparative Legal Sociology and Critical Legal Studies.” Profs Trubek and Abel were the main professors managing this program at Yale Law School and they talk about each of their research interests and how the program came about and its goals and ideas.

In this episode, we share with you another 2021 panel discussion hosted by CCEP, titled “The Eviction Crisis on the Horizon: Rent Relief and Pandemic Recovery in California”. For this conversation, which I had the pleasure of moderating, we brought together three individuals leading the fight for rent relief in California, and particularly in Los Angeles. As with previous panels you'll certainly hear some policy analysis here. However, we wanted to make sure we invited community organizers working at the grassroots level so listeners can also hear how the pandemic, and concomitant eviction crisis, is impacting the lives of tenants. It's worth mentioning that although this panel discussion was held several months ago, the issue is still very relevant today. The pandemic, while subsiding, is not over. And despite the funding for rent relief programs allocated to cities in the American Rescue Plan, renters remain vulnerable and an eviction crisis still looms on the horizon. Panelists: Gary Blasi, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA   Faizah Malik, Senior Staff Attorney, Public Counsel   Pamela Agustin, Coalition Manager, Eastside LEADS Moderated by Brady Collins, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona and Faculty Fellow with CCEP.  For a full video of the panel, visit CCEP's YouTube page. This project was made possible with support from California Humanities, a non-profit partner of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Visit calhum.org. 

In this podcast episode, Greg Marchildon interviews legal scholar Martin L. Friedland on his biography of one of Canada’s most prominent legal and constitutional scholars of the 20th century. His book - Searching for W.P.M. Kennedy: The Biography of an Enigma was published by the University of Toronto Press in 2020. Friedland came into possession of Kennedy’s correspondence and other documents after purchasing the cottage in which Kennedy did so much of his writing. This treasure trove of documentation allowed Friedland to write a detailed biography of Kennedy, the author of The Constitution of Canada (1922) and other works that had a profound impact on legal, constitutional and political scholarship in Canada. Martin Friedland is University Professor and James M. Tory Professor of Law Emeritus at the Univeristy of Toronto, and (like Kennedy) was once Dean of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law.

“It was rumoured that there were people in the department of justice here saying, ‘leave it alone, don’t take it further,’ there are people who were offended but you know we got to have our win,” recalls Professor Michele LaVigne. As Brendan’s post-conviction appeal steamrolled its way through the federal courts the Wisconsin legal fraternity was as split as the en banc majority who had abandoned their call to conscience. In this episode I am joined by Professor LaVigne Clinical Professor of Law Emeritus and co-author of the herculean analysis; Under the Hood: Brendan Dassey, Language Impairments, and Judicial Ignorance to discuss the indefensible misconduct of Len Kachinsky and how Miranda intersects with juveniles with speech and language impairments like Brendan Dassey. To read the analysis: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3379727

Listen to today's episode of The Marketplace of Ideas to hear Robert Jerry, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus of Law at University of Missouri School of Law, and David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, discuss Professor Jerry's recent article on "COVID-19: Responsibility and Accountability in a World of Rationing" in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences.  Robert H. Jerry, II is the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law-Emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law. From 1998 to 2003, he held the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professorship at the University of Missouri School of Law. From 2003 to 2014, he served as dean of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he also held the Levin Mabie and Levin Professorship (through 2015). He returned to MU Law as the Isidor Loeb Professor of Law in 2015, a position he held until his retirement on September 1, 2019 as the Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor-Emeritus. At the University of Missouri School of Law, he has been affiliated with the Center for Dispute Resolution as a Senior Fellow since 2003. As an emeritus faculty member, he maintains an active research agenda. He received his JD from the University of Michigan Law School, where he was a member of the Michigan Law Review, and his undergraduate degree from Indiana State University. Dr. David Hyman focuses his research and writing on the regulation and financing of health care. He teaches or has taught health care regulation, civil procedure, insurance, medical malpractice, law & economics, professional responsibility, and tax policy. He is the author of dozens of scholarly articles in leading legal and medical journals, and several books including Overcharged: Why Americans Pay Too Much For Health Care published by the Cato Institute in 2018 and co-authored with Charles Silver, and the Economics of Health Law published by Edward Elgar in 2016 and co-authored with Ronen Avraham and Charles Silver. Hyman received his BA, JD and MD from the University of Chicago. 

What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement? This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre DameModerator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University BloomingtonIntroduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers ChapterIntroduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement? This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre DameModerator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University BloomingtonIntroduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers ChapterIntroduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Part 3 of our Black Swan Event Series - with Peter Carstensen. Topics that we will be covering: History of antitrust law in the United States Antitrust enforcement in the meat packing industry Available options to producers: how to change the current structure Failure of merger law to succeed Monopolization Role of the Packers & Stockyards Act and its relevancy in recent market disruptions (Holcomb & COVID) Speaker: Peter C. Carstensen is a Professor of Law Emeritus. From 1993 to 2002 he served as Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development at the UW Law School. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, and received his law degree and a master’s degree in economics from Yale University. From 1968 to 1973, he was an attorney at the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice assigned to the Evaluation Section, where one of his primary areas of work was on questions of relating competition policy and law to regulated industries. He has been a member of the faculty of the UW Law School since 1973. He is a Senior Fellow of the American Antitrust Institute.

On today’s episode, we have an interview of Mr. John Norton Moore, Walter L. Brown Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law, by Major Travis J.Covey, Vice Chair and Professor of Law in the National Security Law Department at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. The episode is an addendum to the Thirteenth Waldemar A. Solf and Marc L. Warren Chair lecture in National Security Law given to by Mr. Moore at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. The episode begins with an introduction of Mr. Moore by Major Covey. The discussion addresses Mr. Moore’s lecture, “Defending Defense in the Law of Jus Ad Bellum.” Mr. Moore discusses the origin of the crisis, why defending the effective right of defense is important, the distinction between the US view of treaty interpretation and the European view, ambiguities in the conventions, and what he would like to see going forward. Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode: 00:00 Episode Introduction 02:09 Mr. Moore’s Background in National Security Law 03:40 Overview of Mr. Moore’s lecture: “Defending Defense in the Law of Jus Ad Bellum”. 05:18 Origin of the crisis 06:47 Returning to the effective right of defense 11:08 Distinction between the US view of treaty interpretation versus the European view 13:26 Ambiguities in the conventions 15:37 Looking forward: protecting the right of defense 16:45 Closing remarks 18:09 End of the episode A list of publications and contributions by Mr. Moore is available here. For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to "Battlefield Next" on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible. For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage. *Music by Joseph McDade **The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

The black letter law and articles referenced in this episode are: Executive Order 13382 https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/whwmdeo.pdf Executive Order 13224 https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/13224.pdf War Powers Resolution of 1973 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg555.pdf “Esper contradicts Trump on targeting Iranian cultural sites: We 'follow the laws of armed conflict' “, CNN https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/esper-iran-cultural-sites-trump/index.html Hague Cultural Property Convention https://www.congress.gov/110/crpt/erpt26/CRPT-110erpt26.pdf John Bellinger “Attacking Iran’s Cultural Sites Would Violate the Hague Cultural Property Convention,” Lawfare https://www.lawfareblog.com/attacking-irans-cultural-sites-would-violate-hague-cultural-property-convention John Bellinger III is a partner at Arnold & Porter https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/people/b/bellinger-john-b William Banks is a Professor of Law Emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law http://law.syr.edu/profile/william-banks1

Has evidence now revealed that corruption in 2016 was so extensive that it was President Trump's DUTY to ask for an investigation into the Obama/Biden administration's Ukrainian dealings? Indeed, is this impeachment process part of a "cover-up for extortion, bribery & money laundering" by the Democrats that goes well beyond the Bidens to include DNC collusion with Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump? Hear this fascinating interview with PHILIP HANEY, former DHS Intelligence Official who speak to this and what Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat and Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School, has suggested is the "weaponized" authority of Democrats in the House for partisan reasons and partisan purposes....

In this episode, Susan Bandes, Centennial Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at DePaul University College of Law, discusses her article "Closure in the Criminal Courtroom: The Birth and Strange Career of an Emotion," which will be published in the Edward Elgar Research Handbook on Law and Emotion. Bandes begins by observing that the concept of "closure" in criminal law is relatively novel, and was introduced by the victim's rights movement in the late 1980s. She discusses the different possible meanings of closure and the different ways different parties try to pursue different goals. She reflects on tensions between the emotional needs of victims and their families, and the demands of the criminal justice system. And she argues that more research is needed to determine what will most help victims. Bandes is on Twitter at @BandesSusan.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Carl Esbeck is Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Missouri where he taught classes on civil procedure, constitutional law, religious liberty and civil rights. Carl has been active in promoting and defending religious liberty throughout his career and has published widely in the area of religious liberty and church-state relations, including a new book, Disestablishment and Religious Dissent: Church-State Relations in the New American States, 1776–1833.

Tanya speaks with her former professor and now Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law Emeritus at Yale University, Peter H. Schuck, regarding President Trump's use of The National Emergency Act of 1976 in an attempt to fund a border wall.

In the fourth episode of our NLR podcast series, April Faith-Slaker talks with Stewart Macaulay (Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of…

This wide ranging discussion explores the field of law and emotion and the intersection of law, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy. Prof Bandes is Centennial Professor of Law Emeritus at DePaul University College of Law, Chicago and an expert in the field of law and emotion. Drawing on the fields of law, psychology, neuroscience and the social sciences, Professor Bandes describes how emotions pervade the legal system, and influence the behaviour of legal actors in the courtroom setting. Topics include the role the remorse plays in the courtroom setting, and how judges and juries evaluate remorse. This is essential listening, not just for all Law Students interested in the criminal justice system - but for anyone with an interest in how emotions (those basic human experiences) infuse and ultimately shape courtroom dynamics. Should judges and juries recognise emotion in the courtroom? What role does remorse play in the courtroom and how do judges and juries evaluate remorse? Does a colour or black and white photograph make for better evidence and what effect do they have on a juries emotional state? http://www.susanbandes.com https://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/susan-bandes.aspx https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/martin-regan(44b6ad5d-ce52-4c0c-a4c7-b94c48d9a56e).html

Professor Richard Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. He previously served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. Professor Epstein is also the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago where he taught for 38 years. He is a prolific writer who has authored more than a dozen books on topics ranging from private property to torts, and anti-discrimination law to antitrust, a frequent podcaster and one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century. I had Professor Epstein, one of the preeminent classical liberal thinkers in modern American history on the podcast to discuss a variety of topics including private property rights and eminent domain, why classical liberalism is the most sound of philosophies and minimal regulation the most prudent of policies, whether America should abolish the administrative state, attacks on free speech, the wisdom or lack thereof in regulation of social media companies and much more. What We Discussed The role that Professor Epstein's famous book, Takings played in Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing -- and then-Senator Joe Biden's hectoring Professor Epstein's groundbreaking theories on private property rights, eminent domain and the Takings and Commerce Clauses The practical argument against progressivism Whether we should deconstruct the administrative state, and if so how to do it The danger to free speech emanating from college campuses in a world of microaggressions, trigger warnings, de-platforming The folly of regulating Silicon Valley social media companies Classical liberalism versus socialism and libertarianism  Check out other episodes, show notes and transcripts at benweingarten.com/bigideas. Subscribe, rate and review: iTunes | Stitcher | Google | YouTube Follow Ben: Web | Newsletter | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn Advertising & Sponsorship Inquiries: E-mail us. ___________ Backed Vibes (clean) Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

William Geimer, author, peace activist, is a veteran of the U.S. 82d Airborne Division and Professor of Law Emeritus, Washington and Lee University. After resigning his commission in opposition to the war on Vietnam, he represented conscientious objectors and advised peace groups near Ft. Bragg NC. A Canadian citizen, he lives with his wife near Victoria, British Columbia where he is a member of the Vancouver Island Peace and Disarmament Network. He is the author of Canada: The Case for Staying Out of Other People's Wars and serves as advisor on policy issues of peace and war to Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament and Leader of the Green Party of Canada. Bill Geimer, welcome back to Talk Nation Radio.

In this Teleforum, Prof. Ely of Vanderbilt Law, Prof. Presser of Northwestern, and our Professional Responsibilities Practice Group Chair Jack Park will join us to discuss Prof. Rotunda’s newest book, John Marshall and the Cases that United the States of America. Professor Ronald Rotunda is well known in the Federalist Society community. He passed away unexpectedly March 14, 2018. He was also an active member of the Federalist Society leadership, serving on the Executive Committee of the Professional Responsibilities Practice Group for over a decade and participating in the National Lawyers Convention, CLE Teleforum calls, and podcasts. Featuring:Prof. James W. Ely Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus; Professor of History Emeritus; Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolProf. Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of Business Law Emeritus, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: John J. Park, Jr., Chair, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In this Teleforum, Prof. Ely of Vanderbilt Law, Prof. Presser of Northwestern, and our Professional Responsibilities Practice Group Chair Jack Park will join us to discuss Prof. Rotunda’s newest book, John Marshall and the Cases that United the States of America. Professor Ronald Rotunda is well known in the Federalist Society community. He passed away unexpectedly March 14, 2018. He was also an active member of the Federalist Society leadership, serving on the Executive Committee of the Professional Responsibilities Practice Group for over a decade and participating in the National Lawyers Convention, CLE Teleforum calls, and podcasts. Featuring:Prof. James W. Ely Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus; Professor of History Emeritus; Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolProf. Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of Business Law Emeritus, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: John J. Park, Jr., Chair, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group 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 19, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Sveen v. Melin, a case involving the relationship between Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute and the U.S. Constitution’s “Contracts clause,” which declares that no state may pass a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”In 2002, Minnesota amended its probate code to incorporate life insurance beneficiary designations into its revocation-upon-divorce statute. Mark Sveen purchased a life insurance policy in 1997, months before marrying Kaye Melin, who Sveen designated as the primary beneficiary on the policy. His two adult children, Ashley and Antone Sveen, were listed as contingent beneficiaries. Melin and Sveen divorced in 2007, but Sveen never removed Melin as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Both Melin and Sveen’s adult children sought to claim the insurance proceeds. In light of Minnesota’s extension of the revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies, Sveen’s insurance company sought clarification in federal district court regarding whether Melin should still be considered the primary beneficiary. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sveens, applying the revocation-upon-divorce statute retroactively to remove Melin as a beneficiary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed that judgment, however, reasoning that retroactive application of the statute in these circumstances would violate the Contracts clause. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider that core issue: whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the contracts clause. To discuss the case, we have Prof. James Ely, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vanderbilt University Law School. As 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 19, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Sveen v. Melin, a case involving the relationship between Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute and the U.S. Constitution’s “Contracts clause,” which declares that no state may pass a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”In 2002, Minnesota amended its probate code to incorporate life insurance beneficiary designations into its revocation-upon-divorce statute. Mark Sveen purchased a life insurance policy in 1997, months before marrying Kaye Melin, who Sveen designated as the primary beneficiary on the policy. His two adult children, Ashley and Antone Sveen, were listed as contingent beneficiaries. Melin and Sveen divorced in 2007, but Sveen never removed Melin as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Both Melin and Sveen’s adult children sought to claim the insurance proceeds. In light of Minnesota’s extension of the revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies, Sveen’s insurance company sought clarification in federal district court regarding whether Melin should still be considered the primary beneficiary. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sveens, applying the revocation-upon-divorce statute retroactively to remove Melin as a beneficiary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed that judgment, however, reasoning that retroactive application of the statute in these circumstances would violate the Contracts clause. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider that core issue: whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the contracts clause. To discuss the case, we have Prof. James Ely, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vanderbilt University Law School. 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 Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies Presents a Symposium through the Generosity of George M. YeagerCato's annual Constitution Day symposium marks the day in 1787 that the Constitutional Convention finished drafting the U.S. Constitution. We celebrate that event each year with the release of the new issue of the Cato Supreme Court Review and with a day-long symposium featuring noted scholars discussing the recently concluded Supreme Court term and the important cases coming up. Past speakers have included Judges Alex Kozinski, Diane Sykes, and Douglas Ginsburg, Professors Richard Epstein, Michael McConnell, and Nadine Strossen, and Supreme Court litigators Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, and Walter Dellinger. 1:00—2:15PMPANEL II: MONEY AND CRIME Moderator: Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Cato InstituteDavid Goldberg, Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law SchoolDavid Post, Professor of Law Emeritus, Beasley School of Law at Temple UniversityThaya Brook Knight, Associate Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr Michael Perlin, Professor of Law Emeritus at New York Law School (NYLS), has spent more than thirty years working at the point where people with mental disability meet the Law. We chatted about key issues that affect these people when dealing with societies preconceptions.Liam Ward talks about the Chinese Furniture Makers Union in 1880's Melbourne looking at some of the issues of racism, work and society that are common with today.Kevin Healey with This is the Week that Was.Prof. Mindy Blaise, Prof. Emily Gray, Dr Linda Knight from Feminist Educators Against Sexism (FEAS) talk about the slippery nature of sexism, why it is so hard to dismantle and some fun ways to out the sexist beast for a future better world.

Part 1: Neuroscientist Qi Lin struggles to connect with friends and colleagues when she can’t escape her scientific mindset. Part 2: When defense attorney Michael Perlin interviews individuals who were not competent to stand trial, he makes a startling discovery. Hailing from Guangzhou (with the best dim sum!), China, Qi Lin is currently working in Dr. Daniela Schiller's lab as a lab manager and investigate the flexibility of emotional memory and the neural basis of social cognition. Qi graduated from New York University with a bachelor degree in psychology in 2015 December. She has a picture of her brain (sagittal) attached on her refrigerator door. Michael Perlin is a Professor of Law Emeritus at New York Law School (NYLS), founding director of NYLS’s Online Mental Disability Law Program, and founding director of NYLS’s International Mental Disability Law Reform Project in its Justice Action Center. He is also the co-founder of Mental Disability Law and Policy Associates. His hobbies include fishing, birding, playing the clarinet, opera, and the music of Bob Dylan. Michael Perlin's story was produced as part of a partnership with Springer Storytellers. Find out more at www.beforetheabstract.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William Geimer, author, peace activist, is a veteran of the U.S. 82d Airborne Division and Professor of Law Emeritus, Washington and Lee University. After resigning his commission in opposition to the war on Vietnam, he represented conscientious objectors and advised peace groups near Ft. Bragg NC, once representing Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory and Donald Sutherland in negotiations with police. A Canadian citizen, he lives with his wife near Victoria, British Columbia where he is a member of the Vancouver Island Peace and Disarmament Network. He is the author of Canada: The Case for Staying Out of Other People's Wars and serves as advisor on policy issues of peace and war to Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.

In his nearly 30 years on the Court, Justice Scalia left a profound mark on many areas of the law, including property rights. From his seminal decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council to his frequent questioning at oral argument, Justice Scalia helped define the relationship between property and the Constitution. While his critics have suggested that Justice Scalia's property rights jurisprudence manifested a willingness to engage in “judicial activism," others have defended Scalia's approach as consistent with original understandings of the text of the Constitution. -- This panel will address Justice Scalia's influence on constitutional understandings of property rights. Professor Ely has written extensively on the historical understandings of property rights including the popular book, The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights. Professor Somin's recently published The Grasping Hand: "Kelo V. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain explores one of the Court's most notorious departures from the protection of property rights. Professor Hills is a renowned expert on the law of land use planning and has taken a more charitable view of the power of government to control the use of property. He is a co-author of Land Use Controls: Cases and Materials. The panel will be moderated by Justice Allison Eid, from the Colorado Supreme Court. -- Featuring: Prof. John Echeverria, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; Prof. James W. Ely, Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of History Emeritus, Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law School; Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Hon. Adam P. Laxalt, Attorney General, Nevada; and Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Allison H. Eid, Colorado Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Peter H. Schuck is the Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law Emeritus at Yale University. He is the author or editor of many books, including Agent Orange on Trial, Meditations of a Militant Moderate, Diversity in America, and Understanding America.

The New Zealand Law Foundation and the University of Otago Faculty of Law present the New Zealand Law Foundation 2011 Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Emeritus Professor Ben Boer. Professor Boer is Emeritus Professor in Environmental Law at the University of Sydney. Here he delivers a public lecture on the topic of "Climate Change, Biodiversity and Protected Areas: The need for an integrated approach". 19 April 2011.

The New Zealand Law Foundation and the University of Otago Faculty of Law present the New Zealand Law Foundation 2011 Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Emeritus Professor Ben Boer. Professor Boer is Emeritus Professor in Environmental Law at the University of Sydney. Here he delivers a public lecture on the topic of "Climate Change, Biodiversity and Protected Areas: The need for an integrated approach". 19 April 2011.

The New Zealand Law Foundation and the University of Otago Faculty of Law present the New Zealand Law Foundation 2011 Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Emeritus Professor Ben Boer. Professor Boer is Emeritus Professor in Environmental Law at the University of Sydney. Here he delivers a public lecture on the topic of "Climate Change, Biodiversity and Protected Areas: The need for an integrated approach". 19 April 2011.

The final installment in our WikiLeaks mini-series, this is a discussion about the legal implications of WikiLeaks with Norman Abrams, Acting Chancellor Emeritus and Professor of Law Emeritus; Prof. David Kaye, Executive Director of the Law School’s Inter

The final installment in our WikiLeaks mini-series, this is a discussion about the legal implications of WikiLeaks with Norman Abrams, Acting Chancellor Emeritus and Professor of Law Emeritus; Prof. David Kaye, Executive Director of the Law School’s Inter

At the age of 69 and after 18 years on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter made the announcement that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of this year’s term in June. Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Professor Daniel J. Meador, James Monroe Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law and Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School and Justice Souter's former law clerk, to reflect on Justice Souter's career, look at the potential list of replacements and the opportunity for President Obama to leave an imprint with his choice for the High Court.

Bipartisanship (and friendship) happen! An evening with Congressman Bob Beauprez and Senator Mark Udall Event Date: Dec 10, 2019 Event Time: 6:30 PM Location: Glenn Miller Ballroom, UMC We hope you were able to join us for a public conversation between former Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez and former Democratic Congressman and Senator Mark Udall. The evening began with a discussion of their sturdy and long-lasting friendship, and then moved to a wide-ranging conversation about issues on which they agree, disagree, and half-agree! The Center of the American West's Faculty Director and Chair of the Board, Patty Limerick, and the Moses Lasky Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Colorado, Charles Wilkinson moderated the conversation. Bob Beauprez served as Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party from 1999-2002. In 2002, Bob was elected as the first representative from Colorado's seventh congressional district and re-elected in 2004. He was the Republican nominee for Governor in 2006 and 2014. In addition to his writing, political, and other activities, Bob says his greatest enjoyment comes from Eagle's Wing Ranch, the buffalo breeding ranch in the northern Colorado Mountains that he operates with Claudia, his wife of 49 years, and Jim and Julie Beauprez, their second eldest son and daughter-in-law. Colorado resident and native westerner Mark Udall represented the people of Colorado in the U.S. Senate from 2009 to 2015 and the 2nd Congressional District from 1999 to 2009. Prior to serving in Congress, Mark served as course director and later as executive director at Colorado Outward Bound School. Mark is an avid mountaineer and has climbed or attempted some of the world’s most challenging peaks, including Mt. Everest, Kanchenjunga, Denali, and Aconcagua. This was the first event in the upcoming 3 year "Bipartisanship (and friendship) happen!" speaker series. Look for updates on who will be coming next! This event was free and open to the public.