Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael W Mcconnell

On April 30, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which examines the constitutionality of religious charter schools. In this episode, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Steven Green of Willamette University join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments, debate the meaning and history of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and survey the Court's other religion cases from this term.  Resources:  Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Carson v. Makin (2022) Michael McConnell and Nathan S. Chapman, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience (2023) Steven Green et al. Brief of Historians and Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond   Michael McConnell et al. Brief for Amici Curiae Religious Liberty Scholars In Support of Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission  Michael McConnell et al. Brief for Professors Douglas Laycock, Richard W. Garnett, Thomas C. Berg, Michael W. McConnell, and David M. Smolin as Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioners, Mahmoud v. Taylor  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

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

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

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

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

John J. Miller is joined by Michael W. McConnell to discuss his new book, 'Agreeing to Disagree.'

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

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

On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The penultimate panel explored "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."Featuring:Moderator: Prof. John C. Harrison, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Akhil R. Amar, Yale Law SchoolProf. Earl M. Maltz, Rutgers University School of LawProf. Michael W. McConnell, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School

On this week's pod, Dave welcomes one of his former professors – Rick Pildes! Professor Pildes is the Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University Law School, an appointee to President Biden's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, and a contributor to the New York Times. He's a leading scholar on the legal issues concerning democracy, and in this episode, we focus on his recent article “Political Fragmentation in Democracies of the West.” To begin, Professor Pildes provides evidence for his main claim that center-left, center-right, and establishment political authority has fragmented across the west, from first-past-the-post to proportional representation systems. Having established this fragmentation, we then discuss potential explanations for why political power has fragmentented. Beyond a slew of economic issues, including globalization, the 2008 financial crisis, and rising income inequality, we also push on the role of immigration and race both in American politics and in other countries. Next, we talk about another big pillar of Professor Pildes' paper – the communications revolution and how it enables politicians to act more as individual actors rather than a cog in their party. After, we overview several potential remedies to this fragmentation of democracy. Lastly, we ask Professor Pildes about his recent work on reforming the electoral college process, including changes to the primary election structure and creating competitive election districts. Referenced Readings “Political Fragmentation in Democracies of the West,” Richard Pildes. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America, Hans Noel. “How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act,” Edward B. Foley, Michael W. McConnell, Richard H. Pildes, and Bradley Smith.

On October 21, 2021, the Gray Center and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. This event, consisting of a daytime law symposium and evening lecture, brought together jurists, legal academics and practitioners, including many of the Justice's former clerks, where we discussed his jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. The second panel looked at the constitutional liberties of the first amendment, religion, race, and natural law, relating them to Justice Thomas's jurisprudence. It included a discussion featuring: Allison Jones Rushing, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Nicole Stelle Garnett, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School; Elbert Lin, Partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth and former Solicitor General of West Virginia, and Michael McConnell, Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. It was moderated by Adam Mortara, Lecturer in Law at University of Chicago Law School. This episode features Nicole Stelle Garnett, Elbert Lin, Michael W. McConnell, Adam Mortara, and The Honorable Allison Jones Rushing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a stack of executive orders piled on his desk, President Biden wasted no time. According to Newsweek, “President Biden signed more executive orders in the first 12 days of his presidency than the combined number issued by Donald Trump and Barack Obama for the same point in their tenures.” From revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and reversing the travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries, to requiring mask wearing and preventing and combating discrimination, President Biden covered and reversed a wide range of policies with the stroke of a pen. So what is the effect of these orders under the newly elected Biden? And what questions arise as to their legality and constitutionality? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Dr. Kevin G. Vance from the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Department of Political Science, as they discuss President Biden's executive orders, their impact, their constitutionality, the ramifications of the immediate reversal of the prior president’s actions, and what’s to come from this new administration. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

With a stack of executive orders piled on his desk, President Biden wasted no time. According to Newsweek, “President Biden signed more executive orders in the first 12 days of his presidency than the combined number issued by Donald Trump and Barack Obama for the same point in their tenures.” From revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and reversing the travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries, to requiring mask wearing and preventing and combating discrimination, President Biden covered and reversed a wide range of policies with the stroke of a pen. So what is the effect of these orders under the newly elected Biden? And what questions arise as to their legality and constitutionality? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Dr. Kevin G. Vance from the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Department of Political Science, as they discuss President Biden's executive orders, their impact, their constitutionality, the ramifications of the immediate reversal of the prior president’s actions, and what’s to come from this new administration. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

Since 2017, President Trump has issued 181 executive orders. Recently, the president has come under fire for issuing executive orders to provide economic relief to Americans during the pandemic, bypassing congress and its traditional "power of the purse". So what are these executive orders? Are they constitutional, and will the president see legal challenges? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Kimberly Wehle from the University of Baltimore School of Law and professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, to discuss the use of executive orders by the president and, specifically, the constitutionality of President Trump's recent pandemic motivated executive orders. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception. Mentioned in this Podcast: How to Read the Constitution--and Why  What You Need to Know about Voting—and Why The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution Establishment of Religion: Neutrality, Accommodation, and Separation

Since 2017, President Trump has issued 181 executive orders. Recently, the president has come under fire for issuing executive orders to provide economic relief to Americans during the pandemic, bypassing congress and its traditional "power of the purse". So what are these executive orders? Are they constitutional, and will the president see legal challenges? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Kimberly Wehle from the University of Baltimore School of Law and professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, to discuss the use of executive orders by the president and, specifically, the constitutionality of President Trump's recent pandemic motivated executive orders. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception. Mentioned in this Podcast: How to Read the Constitution--and Why What You Need to Know about Voting—and Why The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution Establishment of Religion: Neutrality, Accommodation, and Separation

Emily, John and David discuss Biden's understated presidential campaign, the new Supreme Court decisions, and Hamilton. Here are some notes and references from this week’s show: Jamelle Bouie for The New York Times: “Maybe This Isn’t Such a Good Time to Prosecute a Culture War” David Weigel for The Washington Post: “The Trailer: Who's Afraid of Joe Biden?” Michael W. McConnell for the New York Times: “On Religion, the Supreme Court Protects the Right to Be Different” Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy by Annette Gordon-Reed The New York Times Magazine: “The 1619 Project” Winds of Change podcast Here are this week’s cocktail chatters: Emily: Sea Wife by Amity Gaige; “426 Years: An Examination of 25 Wrongful Convictions in Brooklyn, New York” John: Jake Rossen for Mental Floss: “10 Examples of the Mandela Effect”; Chess.com: “What is Zugzwang?”    David: Meghann Myers for Military Times: “Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Who Testified Against Trump, Announces Retirement From the Army” Listener chatter from Emmy Rald @RaldEmmy: Phoebe Weston for The Guardian: “‘Landscape of Fear’: What a Mass of Rotting Reindeer Carcasses Taught Scientists” Slate Plus members get a bonus segment on the Gabfest each week, and access to special bonus episodes throughout the year. Sign up now to listen and support our show. For this week’s Slate Plus bonus segment David and Emily discuss the shaming of wealthy companies that took Paycheck Protection Program loans. You can tweet suggestions, links, and questions to @SlateGabfest. Tweet us your cocktail chatter using #cocktailchatter. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   The email address for the Political Gabfest is gabfest@slate.com. (Email may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jocelyn Frank. Research and show notes by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily, John and David discuss Biden's understated presidential campaign, the new Supreme Court decisions, and Hamilton. Here are some notes and references from this week’s show: Jamelle Bouie for The New York Times: “Maybe This Isn’t Such a Good Time to Prosecute a Culture War” David Weigel for The Washington Post: “The Trailer: Who's Afraid of Joe Biden?” Michael W. McConnell for the New York Times: “On Religion, the Supreme Court Protects the Right to Be Different” Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy by Annette Gordon-Reed The New York Times Magazine: “The 1619 Project” Winds of Change podcast Here are this week’s cocktail chatters: Emily: Sea Wife by Amity Gaige; “426 Years: An Examination of 25 Wrongful Convictions in Brooklyn, New York” John: Jake Rossen for Mental Floss: “10 Examples of the Mandela Effect”; Chess.com: “What is Zugzwang?”    David: Meghann Myers for Military Times: “Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Who Testified Against Trump, Announces Retirement From the Army” Listener chatter from Emmy Rald @RaldEmmy: Phoebe Weston for The Guardian: “‘Landscape of Fear’: What a Mass of Rotting Reindeer Carcasses Taught Scientists” Slate Plus members get a bonus segment on the Gabfest each week, and access to special bonus episodes throughout the year. Sign up now to listen and support our show. For this week’s Slate Plus bonus segment David and Emily discuss the shaming of wealthy companies that took Paycheck Protection Program loans. You can tweet suggestions, links, and questions to @SlateGabfest. Tweet us your cocktail chatter using #cocktailchatter. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   The email address for the Political Gabfest is gabfest@slate.com. (Email may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jocelyn Frank. Research and show notes by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that the earth belongs to the living. His letter to James Madison is often quoted for the proposition that we should not be bound to the “dead hand of the past,” suggesting that the Constitution should instead be interpreted as a living, breathing document. Less well known is Madison’s response, in which he said that the Constitution forms a debt against the living, who take the benefit of it. This debt, Madison claimed, could only be discharged by a kind of originalism. Who is right? Thomas Jefferson or James Madison? Please join us for a conversation with Ilan Wurman, author of the forthcoming book A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism, to discuss this and many other questions. Stanford law professor and former federal judge Michael W. McConnell has described the book as the first “to explain to the ordinary citizen—free from what the late Justice Antonin Scalia called ‘jiggery pokery’—what it means to understand the Constitution as enduring law rather than politics by a different name.” All are welcome, but interns, law students, and potential law students may be particularly interested. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This panel will discuss administrative agencies’ increasing use of devices such as guidance letters, consent decrees, and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (instead of final rules or adjudications issued with APA procedural protections) as mechanisms for setting major policies that may be effectively binding on private parties. -- This panel was held on January 6, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Panel: “Dear Colleague”/Guidance Letters, Consent Decrees, and other administrative law innovations -- Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law; Prof. Gail Heriot, University San Diego School of Law; Prof. Richard Pierce, The George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Aaron Saiger, Fordham University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School.

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

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