Podcast appearances and mentions of Robert H Jackson

In this special episode we hear the Hon. Jed S. Rakoff – Senior Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York – deliver a speech to the Association entitled "The U.S. Supreme Court's History as a Regressive Institution." Judge Rakoff's speech is part of City Bar's Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture Series, which is inspired by the legacy of Benjamin N. Cardozo "and his love for the law, passion for justice and sympathy for humanity." First presented in 1941, previous speakers in the series have included Robert H. Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William J. Brennan, Jr., Marian Wright Edelman, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among many others. Judge Rakoff was introduced by Judge Raymond Lohier, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after a welcome from City Bar President Muhammad Faridi.

Content warning for discussion of genocide. Welcome to the first spisode of Have a Day! w/ The History Wizard. This episode will discuss the early days of the field of genocide, the process by which it became a crime undernational law, the life of Raphael Lemkin, in brief, and the first time a country was charged with this crime above all crimes Intro and outro music linked here: https://uppbeat.io/track/paulo-kalazzi/heros-time Episode Transcript to Follow: Hey, Hi, Hello. This is The History Wizard and thank you for joining me for the flagship episode of “Have a Day w/ The History Wizard”. As we embark on this journey together we're going to be talking about History, Politics, Economics, Cartoons, Video Games, Comics, and the points at which all of these topics intersect. Anyone who has been following me one Tiktok or Instagram, @thehistorywizard on Tiktok and @the_history_wizard on Instagram, for any length of time. Literally any length of time at all, will probably be familiar with some, if not all, of the information we're going to learn today. However, I hope that you'll bear with me as it is important to, before we dive into the meat of the matter, make sure we've got some bones to wrap it around… Yes, that is the metaphor I'm going to go with. I wrote it down in my script, read it, decided I liked it, and now you all have to listen to it.  For our first episode we are going to be diving into one of my favorite parts of my field of expertise, meta knowledge concerning the field of genocide studies itself. Yes, that's right. We're going to start with the definition of genocide. The United Nations established the legal definition of genocide in the Convention for the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, which was unanimously adopted by the 51 founding members of the UN in the third meeting of the General Assemble and came into full legal force in 1951 after the 20th nation ratified it. This, by the way, is why none of the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trial were charged with the crime of genocide. The crime didn't exist when they were on trial. But, to return to the matter at hand, the definition of genocide can be found in Article 2 of the Convention for the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide and reads as follows: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. It is important to note that definition of genocide that the UN adopted is not exactly the same as the definition that Lemkin first proposed to the UN. His definition included economic classes, as well as political parties. There was, significant, pushback against the inclusion of those two categories from the US and the USSR as both nations feared that their many of their own actions could be considered genocide. Lemkin didn't fight too hard for those categories to stay in the definition, he was more concerned with ethnicity, nationality, race, and religion for, what he called, their cultural carrying capacity. Now, despite Lemkin's concern over the destruction of cultures, there is no strict legal definition of cultural genocide. The inclusion of Article 2, subsection E: Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, could be seen as a nod to this idea, but it's not nearly enough. There was some effort to rectify this oversight in 2007 with the passage of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that indigenous peoples have a right against forcible assimilation. But even that is barely a step in the right direction as the UN DRIP is a legally non binding resolution making it little better than a suggestion. Now, where did the word genocide come from? Who made it and why? The term genocide was the brain child of a Polish-Jewish lawyer and Holocaust survivor named Raphael Lemkin. Now, despite Lemkin being a Holocaust survivor and term not gaining legal recognition until 1948, Lemkin actually based his work on the Armenian Genocide, what he originally called The Crime of Barbarity. Fun fact about Lemkin, he spoke 9 languages and could read 14. Anyway, after reading about the assassination of Talat Pasha in 1921. Talat was assassinated by Soghomon Telhirian as part of Operation Nemesis (he was put on trial for the assassination and was acquitted) After reading about the assassination Lemkin asked one of his professors at Jan Kazimierz University of Lwów (now the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv) why Talat was unable to be tried for his crimes before a court of law. The professor replied thusly: "Consider the case of a farmer who owns a flock of chickens. He kills them, and this is his business. If you interfere, you are trespassing." Lemkin replied, "But the Armenians are not chickens". His eventual conclusion was that "Sovereignty cannot be conceived as the right to kill millions of innocent people" In 1933 Lemkin made a presentation to the Legal Council of the League of Nations conference on international criminal law in Madrid, for which he prepared an essay on the Crime of Barbarity as a crime against international law. This is where the world would first encounter the word “genocide” a word that Lemkin had created by combining the Greek root ‘genos' meaning race or tribe, with the Latin root ‘cide' meaning killing.  Lemkin was as a private solicitor in Warsaw in 1939 and fled as soon as he could. He managed to escape through Lithuania to Sweden where he taught at the University of Stockholm until he was, with the help of a friend, a Duke University law professor named Malcolm McDermott Lemkin was able to flee to the US. Unfortunately for Lemkin he lost 49 member of his family to the Holocaust. The only family that survived was his brother, Elias and his wife who had both been sent to a Soviet forced labor camp. Lemkin was able to help them both relocate to Montreal in 1948. After publishing his iconic book “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” with the help of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Lemkin became an advisor for chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials, Robert H. Jackson. It was during these trials that he became convinced, more than ever before, that this crime above all crimes needed a name and laws to prevent and punish it. Even after the passage of the Convention for the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Lemkin didn't consider his work to be over. The UN was brand new and had little in the way of real authority (something that hasn't changed over the past 70 years). So Lemkin traveled around to world trying to get national governments to adopt genocide laws into their own body of laws. He worked with a team of lawyers from Arabic delegations to try and get France tried for genocide for their conduct in Algeria and wrote an article in 1953 on the “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine” what we know as the Holodomor, though Lemkin never used that term in his article. Lemkin lived the last years of his life in poverty in New York city. He died in 1959 of a heart attack, and his funeral, which occurred at Riverside Church in Manhattan, was attended by only a small number of his close friends. Lemkin is buried in Mount Hebron Cemetery in Flushing, Queens. The last thing I want to discuss in our first episode is the first country to be charged with the crime of genocide before the United Nations. As we have already established, despite the Holocaust being the western world's premiere example of genocide, no one at the Nuremberg Trials was tried for the crime of genocide. So who, I can hear you asking from the future, who was the first country charged with genocide? Why, dear listener, it was none other than the U S of A in a 1951 paper titled “We Charge Genocide, which was presented before the United Nations in Paris in 1951. The document pointed out that the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defined genocide as any acts committed with "intent to destroy" a group, "in whole or in part." To build its case for black genocide, the document cited many instances of lynching in the United States, as well as legal discrimination, disenfranchisement of blacks in the South, a series of incidents of police brutality dating to the present, and systematic inequalities in health and quality of life. The central argument: The U.S. government is both complicit with and responsible for a genocidal situation based on the UN's own definition of genocide. The paper was supported by the American Communist Party and was signed by many famous personages such as:  W. E. B. Du Bois, George W. Crockett, Jr., Benjamin J. Davis, Jr., Ferdinand Smith, Oakley C. Johnson, Aubrey Grossman, Claudia Jones, Rosalie McGee, Josephine Grayson, Amy and Doris Mallard, Paul Washington, Wesley R. Wells, Horace Wilson, James Thorpe, Collis English, Ralph Cooper, Leon Josephson, and William Patterson. It was Patterson who presented the paper and the signatures before the UN in 1951. The UN largely ignored Patterson and never deigned to hear his case against the US government. And upon his return journey Patterson was detained while passing through Britain and had his passport seized once he returned to the US. He was forbade to ever travel out of the country again. The history of the field of genocide studies is long, unfortunately, far longer than the existence of a word with a legal definition and laws to back it up. We'll be going through the history of genocide in future episode, interspersed with other historical events or pressing issues of great import as we take this educational journey together. I'm going to try and put an episode together once a week, and if that needs to change for any reason I will let you know. Next week, on March 26th, we'll be learning about the Gazan genocide and the vast amount of historical context that goes into this, currently occurring, genocide. I've been the History Wizard. You can find me on Tiktok @thehistorywizard. You can find me on Instagram @the_history_wizard. Have a Day w/ The History Wizard can be found anywhere pods are cast. If you cannot find it on your podcatcher or choice, let me know and I will try and do something about it. Tune in next week for more depressing, but very necessary information and remember… Have a Day!

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 369, in which I review the Who Killed JFK? podcast, episodes 9-10. Read this review (written review of episode 10, with link to written review of episode 9) Podcast reviews of Who Killed JFK? Episodes 1-5 and 6-8   Photo by Robert H. Jackson. Originally published in the Dallas Times Herald, November 25, 1963. Winner of the 1964 Pulitzer Prize for Photography.

Quase-Estado?? O episódio da nossa série, nosso dicotômico Adler Silva traz o conceito formulado por Robert H. Jackson sobre os países que não são Estados de Fato. Um conceito bem controverso, que gera muito debate e reflete sobre a natureza da soberania no período pós-colonial. Para você que ficou curioso e quer saber mais sobre os Quase-Estados, já pode dar o play no ABC das RI!!! Referências e Indicações: Jackson, R.. Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Cambridge University Press, 1990. GALDINO, Carolina Ferreira. Nasce um Estado: a construção do Timor Leste. 2012. 134 f. Dissertação (mestrado) - UNESP/UNICAMP/PUC-SP, Programa San Tiago Dantas, 2012. SANTOS, A.S.. A intervenção humanitária em três quase-Estados africanos: Somália, Ruanda e Libéria⁠. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio, Brasil, 2003. Edição, roteiro e imagem: Adler Silva. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/dicotomia-cast/message

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. 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

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To say there are widespread reports of abuses by Russian troops in Ukraine is to undersell it. There have been hundreds and hundreds of cases claiming rape, torture, and murder. Last week, a video of the torture and execution of a Ukrainian soldier at the hands of Russian soldiers shocked the world.We call these things war crimes and crimes against humanity. But that's a relatively new concept. Today we're going to talk about the Nuremberg Trials, which took some vague ideals and put them into practice.Joining us today to talk about the Nuremberg Trials is John Barrett. He's a Professor of Law at St. John's University, a biographer of former U.S. Attorney General and Nuremberg chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson.Angry Planet has a substack! Join the Information War to get weekly insights into our angry planet and hear more conversations about a world in conflict.https://angryplanet.substack.com/subscribeYou can listen to Angry Planet on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or follow our RSS directly. Our website is angryplanetpod.com. You can reach us on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/angryplanetpodcast/; and on Twitter: @angryplanetpod.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/warcollege. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

20th November 1945 and the Defendants take their place in the dock – 22 of the most senior Nazis, representing each component of Hitler's machine. But without simultaneous translation the trial will be unworkable – are the interpreters ready? Can they manage 100 words-per-minute? This has never been done before. Nuremberg was the first ever use of simultaneous translation of every spoken word, into at least three other languages...they said it couldn't be done. But it was. And the trial would have been impossible without it. And once the indictments have been read, Robert Jackson, Chief US Prosecutor stands to make the opening speech. Starring Amanda Ryan as Tatiana Sablikova, a Russian translator and Joseph Mydell as Robert H Jackson. Tatiana Sablikova - AMANDA RYAN Leon Dostert - CLIVE WOOD Robert H Jackson - JOSEPH MYDELL Sir Geoffrey Lawrence - NICHOLAS WOODESON Robert Storey- HARI DHILLON Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe- FORBES MASSON Albert Speer - JOSEPH ALESSI Hermann Goering and other roles - NIGEL LINDSAY Joachim von Ribbentrop and other roles - JASPER BRITTON Hans Fritzsche and other roles - NATHAN WILEY Wilhelm Keitel - JONATHAN CULLEN Russian Interpreter and other roles - ILAN GOODMAN German Interpreter and other roles - MARK EDEL-HUNT French Interpreter and other roles - ANDREW WOODALL Russian Prosecutor - HENRY GOODMAN Titles - LEWIS MACLEOD Sound Designer - ADAM WOODHAMS Studio Manager - MARK SMITH Casting Director - GINNY SCHILLER Original Score - METAPHOR MUSIC Writer and Director - JONATHAN MYERSON Producer - NICHOLAS NEWTON A Promenade Production for BBC Radio 4 and BBC Sounds

June 1945 and with the Nazis under arrest, the Allies must now decide what to do with them. Washington wants a trial, while in London, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is happy with a summary court martial. But if you put them on trial, what is the charge? Russia, USA, France and the UK meet in London to begin the tortured negotiations towards the creation of a totally new sort of trial. Churchill wants the top 50 put against a wall and shot; Stalin wants them to have a ‘show trial' and then be shot. But, following the sudden death of Roosevelt, the new US President Truman insists on formal justice. Starring Kate Phillips as Whitehall secretary, the Hon. Diana Ravenscourt, and Joseph Mydell as Robert H Jackson, the Chief American prosecutor. Cast: The Hon. Diana Ravenscourt - KATE PHILLIPS Robert H Jackson - JOSEPH MYDELL Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe - FORBES MASSON Samuel Roseman - CLIVE WOOD Murray Bernays - JOSEPH ALESSI Iona Nikitchenko - HENRY GOODMAN Winston Churchill - ANDREW WOODALL Joseph Stalin - JASPER BRITTON Henri Gros - JONATHAN CULLEN Speaker at Speakers' Corner - NICHOLAS WOODESON Titles - LEWIS MACLEOD Sound Designer - ADAM WOODHAMS Studio Manager - MARK SMITH Casting Director - GINNY SCHILLER Original Score - METAPHOR MUSIC Writer and Director - JONATHAN MYERSON Producer - NICHOLAS NEWTON A Promenade Production for BBC Radio 4 and BBC Sounds

This week David Miranda and Vincent Bonventre dive into the many substantial cases facing the Supreme Court this term, including a case involving New York's gun laws and abortion access. Bonventre examines Chief Justice Roberts' evolving role as a moderate voice.  Bonventre is the Robert H. Jackson Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and this is his 7th appearance on the Miranda Warnings podcast. subscribe, for free, on Apple Podcasts   follow, for free, on Spotify

Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof". Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person. In many legal systems, accused criminals cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves—they may choose to speak to police or other authorities, but they cannot be punished for refusing to do so. There are 108 countries and jurisdictions that currently issue legal warnings to suspects, which include the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. These laws are not uniform across the world; however, members of the European Union have developed their laws around the EU's guide. United States law. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the accused from being forced to incriminate themselves in a crime. The Amendment reads: No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ... Additionally, under the Miranda ruling, a person also has the right to remain silent while in police custody so as to not reveal any incriminating information. In order to invoke this constitutional right to remain silent, a person must explicitly and unambiguously tell officers that they are exercising this right to remain silent. Therefore, staying silent without a prior exclamation that you are exercising this constitutional right does not invoke the right. In Miranda v Arizona (1966) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of them their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. Justice Robert H. Jackson further notes that "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances". Miranda warnings must be given before there is any "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way". Suspects must be warned, prior to the interrogation, that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to have an attorney and if one cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to defend such person. Further, only after such warnings are given and understood, may the individual knowingly waive them and agree to answer questions or make a statement. It is also important to note that the Fifth Amendment protects certain types of evidence, specifically testimonial evidence, which are statements that are spoken by the person in question that are made under oath. For a list of other different types of evidence, see Evidence (law). --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Mar. 24, 2021 - The immediate retirement of New York State Court of Appeals Judge Paul Feinman on Tuesday leaves another vacancy on the top court to fill in 2021. Vin Bonventre, Justice Robert H. Jackson Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and Editor of the New York Court Watcher blog, gave his analysis of Feinman's time on the court and the impact his retirement has.

26.7.1946 | US-Chefankläger Robert Jackson verliest sein Schlussplädoyer und nutzt es zu einer pointierten Abrechnung mit den Angeklagten, die von nichts gewusst haben wollen.

Ngày 20/11/1945, tòa án quân sự quốc tế bắt đầu xét xử một số lãnh đạo cao cấp chế độ Đức Quốc Xã. Lần đầu tiên trong lịch sử, những tội ác chiến tranh, tội ác chống hòa bình và tội ác chống nhân loại được đưa ra xét xử trước một tòa án quốc tế. Sự kiện đánh dấu cột mốc cho sự hình thành Tòa án Hình sự Quốc tế - CPI sau này. « Mong rằng bốn nước đại cường thắng trận nhưng cũng chịu nhiều thương tổn không có hành động báo thù đối với những kẻ thù tù binh của họ, đây là một trong những vật cống quan trọng nhất mà một cường quốc chẳng bao giờ phải trả cho lẽ phải ». Bằng những lời lẽ trang trọng này, chưởng lý Robert H. Jackson, thẩm phán Tối Cao Pháp Viện Mỹ, đã khai mạc phiên xử. Một phiên tòa chưa từng có Định mệnh trớ trêu, tòa án quốc tế được thành lập tại Cung điện Công lý tráng lệ của thành phố Nuremberg, thành trì đế chế cổ, và thành phố biểu tượng của chủ nghĩa phát xít. Chính tại nơi đây, Hitler thường tổ chức các cuộc tập hợp và ban hành các đạo luật chống người Do Thái năm 1935. Trong lịch sử ngành luật, Nuremberg được xem như là một phiên tòa ngoại hạng. Hai mươi bốn nhân vật lãnh đạo cao cấp của Đức Quốc Xã ngồi ghế bị cáo. Mười tháng xử án, với gần 3.000 tấn tài liệu, 6.600 mẫu vật chứng và hàng trăm nhân chứng. Phiên xử quy tụ hơn 400 nhà báo, hàng trăm thông dịch viên để chuyển ngữ các cuộc tranh luận theo 4 thứ tiếng và một biên bản nghe luận dầy 16.000 trang. Sau 218 ngày tranh cãi, phiên tòa kết thúc vào ngày 01/10/1946 với 12 bản án tử hình, ba lệnh tha bổng và 7 án tù đi từ 10 năm đến chung thân. Ông Matthias Gemahlich, tiến sĩ về sử học trên tờ Deutsch Well của Đức, nhắc lại rằng ý định lập một tòa án quân sự đặc biệt xét xử những hành động bạo tàn của các lãnh đạo và quân nhân Đức Quốc Xã, đã được bốn nước đồng minh là Hoa Kỳ, Liên Xô, Anh và Pháp bàn thảo ngay từ năm 1943. « Bốn cường quốc đồng minh này đã đạt được một đồng thuận sao cho có được một tòa án quốc tế, một cơ quan có thẩm quyền để xét xử các nhà lãnh đạo, các đại diện và các quan chức cao cấp của Đức Quốc Xã. » Phiên tòa khai mạc nhưng vắng bóng Adolf Hitler, đã tự sát vì không muốn rơi vào tay Đồng Minh. Nhưng trên ghế bị cáo, vẫn còn có Hermann Goring – nhân vật số 2 của chế độ Đức Quốc Xã, Rudolph Hess, Hans Frank hay Robert Ley, những nhân vật cao cấp. Do vậy, với nhà nghiên cứu sử học Matthias Gemahlich , « Đây đúng là một điều rất mới trong lịch sử bởi vì trước đó, chưa từng có một định chế, một cấp tòa án nào như thế có được thẩm quyền và trách nhiệm này. Và họ cũng có được đồng thuận sao cho phiên xử này phải được công minh. Tòa án Quân sự Nuremberg lúc đó là độc lập, không có một quân lệnh nào và các thẩm phán cũng độc lập ». 75 năm sau nhìn lại, Nuremberg cho thấy là một phiên tòa ở cấp độ quốc tế với những thẩm phán đến từ nhiều nước khác nhau vẫn là điều có thể. Đó là một phiên tòa có tranh luận. « Các bị cáo vẫn có quyền phát biểu, họ cũng có cả luật sư và do vậy họ có thể chuẩn bị trước khi phiên tòa được mở » theo như ghi nhận của sử gia Ornella Rovetta, trường đại học Bruxelles trên đài RTBF của Bỉ. Phiên tòa Nuremberg còn là dịp để tìm hiểu điều gì đã dẫn đến những hành động tàn bạo, để rồi từ đó cho ra đời những thuật ngữ pháp lý mới như tội ác chiến tranh, tội ác chống nhân loại và sau này là diệt chủng. Những khái niệm, những nguyên tắc cơ bản mà theo bà Viviane Dettrich, phó giám đốc Viện nghiên cứu các nguyên lý Nuremberg, khi trả lời đài RFI cho rằng 75 năm sau vẫn còn giữ nguyên các giá trị, làm nền tảng cho các vụ xử quốc tế sau này như nạn diệt chủng tại Rwanda hay như các vụ thảm sát ở Nam Tư cũ. « Đó là một sự đổi mới về pháp lý. Các từ, thậm chí các thuật ngữ đã được tạo ra vào thời kỳ đó như thuật ngữ ʺtội ác chống nhân loạiʺ chẳng hạn. Đây là lần đầu tiên, loại hình tội phạm mới này nằm trong chương trình nghị sự của phiên tòa Nuremberg.   Thuật ngữ học giờ đã có những thay đổi. Trước đây, người ta nó đến tội ác chống nhân loại, tội ác chống hòa bình, những thuật ngữ đó đã được đưa vào trong từ vựng quốc tế. Ngày nay, người ta nói đến tội danh gây hấn nhiều hơn là tội ác chống hòa bình . Nhưng trên thực tế những tội danh đó vẫn là những tội ác quốc tế, chúng cũng chính là những tội ác được tòa án Nuremberg nhìn nhận vào năm 1945. Điều gây ấn tượng chính là khái niệm diệt chủng lại không được đề cập đến trong Hiến chương Luân Đôn, nguồn gốc của phiên tòa Nuremberg. Phải đợi đến năm 1948 khái niệm này mới có trong Công ước về Ngăn ngừa và Trừng phạt tội Diệt chủng (Convention pour la Prevention et la Repression du Crime de genocide). » Nếu như năm 1945, Nuremberg đã khai cổng, thì con đường đi đến công lý quốc tế thật sự cũng nhiều chông gai. Phải đợi đến hơn nửa thế kỷ, sau khi chiến tranh lạnh kết thúc, Tòa án Hình sự Quốc tế - CPI, mới thật sự ra đời năm 1998, đóng trụ sở tại La Haye. Chỉ có điều bối cảnh chính trị ngày nay đã có nhiều đổi khác. Tuy không có những cuộc đại chiến, nhưng bà Viviane Dettrich cho rằng những cuộc xung đột nhỏ và dai dẳng nổ ra khắp nơi, đang đặt CPI trước nhiều thách thức quốc tế trong việc xét xử các tội ác ngày nay. « Thách thức hiện tại cho chúng ta là tiếp tục duy trì ý tưởng một nền công lý quốc tế do phiên tòa Nuremberg mang lại. Đúng là tình hình hiện nay hoàn toàn khác biệt, nghĩa là các cuộc chiến dai dẳng hơn, những mối đe dọa tái hiện, những kẻ gây tội ác tìm cách lẩn trốn, việc thu thập nhân chứng và bằng chứng nhiều khó khăn hơn. Nền công lý ngày nay đang bước vào bối cảnh bị chính trị hóa sâu sắc và bị chia năm xẻ bảy. » Công lý của kẻ mạnh? Nhưng rủi thay những hạn chế của Nuremberg năm xưa cũng là những giới hạn của CPI ngày nay. Ngay khi mở phiên tòa, Nuremberg đã bị chỉ trích là tòa án của bên thắng cuộc đối với bên bại trận. Đó là một nền công lý một chiều và nhiều mảng tối vẫn chưa được làm sáng tỏ. Vì sao không ai phán xử những tội ác do phe Đồng Minh gây ra ? Tính chất phổ quát, tính chính đáng của CPI giờ còn thêm phần hạn hẹp do thiếu vắng sự hiện diện của nhiều nước lớn. Vẫn theo nhà nghiên cứu về Nuremberg, việc cả Hoa Kỳ, Nga, Trung Quốc lẫn Ấn Độ đều không tham gia vào CPI là những trở ngại lớn cho sự vận hành của định chế quốc tế này.  « Người ta thấy rõ có một kiểu hợp tác ʺtheo mónʺ. Nhất là ở những nước lớn, người ta chỉ thấy có một sự hợp tác pháp lý quốc tế nếu như điều đó có lợi cho họ. Còn nếu như điều đó gây bất lợi, phiền hà, thì họ thoái lui hay thậm chí đối đầu với các định chế một cách trực diện. Quả thật, đây là một nhược điểm, do còn thiếu sự ủng hộ từ nhiều quốc gia. Nhưng mặt khác, chúng ta có được 123 nước đã tham gia ký kết và phê chuẩn Hiệp ước Roma, đó cũng chính là những nước thành viên của Tòa Án Hình Sự Quốc Tế CPI. Dù vậy, cũng nên nhìn nhận là vẫn còn thiếu tính phổ quát, đây thật sự là một khiếm khuyết quan trọng cho CPI. » Thế giới hẳn chưa quên việc chính quyền Donald Trump hồi đầu tháng 9/2020 đã ban hành các biện pháp trừng phạt nhắm vào các lãnh đạo CPI nhằm trả đũa tòa án La Haye thông báo mở điều tra về tội ác chiến tranh, tội ác chống nhân loại của binh sĩ Mỹ tại Afghanistan. Làm thế nào một quốc gia có thể đơn phương áp đặt các biện pháp trừng phạt nhắm vào lãnh đạo của CPI ? Một hành động mà bà Viviane Dettrich đánh giá là « điều chưa từng thấy, đáng quan ngại », có thể gây ra những « tác động tai hại về việc tôn trọng các quyền cũng như gây trở ngại cho các tòa án tiến hành công việc của mình một cách độc lập ». Trong bối cảnh này, nhiều câu hỏi được đặt ra : Tương lai nào cho nền công lý quốc tế ? Nên chăng thành lập một tổ chức khác để xét xử các tội ác quốc tế ? Hay là cần phải có nhiều ràng buộc để các nước phải hợp tác nhiều hơn ? Liệu công lý có thể được thực thi theo một cách khác nghĩa là tự bản thân các nước thi hành công lý ? Về điểm này, phó giám đốc Viện Nghiên cứu các nguyên tắc Nuremberg lạc quan dự phóng hướng đi có thể cho nền công lý quốc tế trong tương lai: « Một trong những nguyên tắc cơ bản của CPI chính là nguyên tắc ʺtính chất bổ sungʺ. Nghĩa là, trước hết, công tác truy tố và xét xử phải được tiến hành ở cấp độ quốc gia. Chỉ khi nào không có thiện chí chính trị và khả năng, các vụ việc mới được xét xử trên bình diện quốc tế. Tuy nhiên, ngày nay, ngày càng có nhiều quốc gia xem xét nghiêm túc trách nhiệm của họ, đương nhiên các phiên tòa sẽ phải là công minh, hợp pháp và các vụ xử thật sự được nghiên cứu kỹ để đưa những người có trách nhiệm ra trước pháp luật. Chúng ta cũng thấy là ngày càng có những nước thứ ba xét xử những cá nhân vì những tội ác quốc tế phạm phải ở một nước khác. Ở đây, chúng ta có thể nói đến khái niệm thẩm quyền phổ quát,  và theo nguyên tắc này, một nhà nước có khả năng và đôi khi có bổn phận truy tố một người bị nghi ngờ phạm các tội ác quốc tế ở bên ngoài lãnh thổ của mình. Chẳng hạn, việc nước Đức cho mở phiên tòa xét xử các nhà lãnh đạo chế độ Syria là một ví dụ điển hình. Trong vụ việc này, có một sự hợp tác Pháp – Đức về tư pháp trên phương diện hình sự. Tư pháp Đức đã phối hợp với bộ phận chuyên trách về tội ác chống nhân loại, tội ác chiến tranh của Viện Công tố Paris để tiến hành các cuộc điều tra chung. Chúng ta thấy rõ là sự hợp tác này được tiến hành ở cấp độ quốc gia, thế nên đây sẽ là một sai sót nếu phủ nhận vai trò quan trọng của các cấp tòa án quốc gia như là một thành tố của nguyên tắc Nuremberg, nhất là khi đối chiếu với nguyên tắc tính bổ sung do CPI khuyến nghị. Thế nên, tương lai của luật quốc tế, đôi khi được định đoạt bởi những quân cờ ở cấp quốc gia và do vậy, cũng nên thật sự nhìn nhận những tiến bộ đáng kể đang diễn ra tại Đức và nhiều nơi khác. »

Vor 75 Jahren hat der erste Prozess gegen Kriegsverbrecher in Nürnberg begonnen. Es war das erste Mal, dass Menschen für die Verbrechen, die sie während eines Krieges begangen hatten, vor ein Gericht gestellt wurden. Bei den Nürnberger Prozessen ging es nicht um die Schuld eines ganzen Volkes. Sondern die Täter sollten zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden als Beispiel dafür, wie ein demokratischer Rechtsstaat funktioniert. Außerdem wollten die Alliierten das ganze Ausmaß der Nazidiktatur ans Licht bringen. Die drei größten Verbrecher Hitler, Himmler und Goebbels hatten sich durch Selbstmord einer Strafverfolgung entzogen. Der US-Chefankläger Robert H. Jackson hat die Tragweite der Prozesse schon in seiner Eröffnungsrede formuliert: "Die wahre Klägerin vor den Schranken dieses Gerichts ist die Zivilisation!“ Tatsächlich waren die Nürnberger Prozesse der Wegbereiter für die internationale Strafverfolgung von Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, wie wir sie heute haben, auch für eine Art Weltgewissen in Den Haag, dem aber bisher nur 120 Staaten beigetreten sind. Die USA, China und Russland sind unter anderem nicht dabei.

In this edition of the podcast, we are speaking with Justice Robert H. Jackson Distinguished Professor of Law Vin Bonventre about developments on the Supreme Court and courts here in New York State. Prof. Bonventre is also the author of New York Court Watcher, a blog devoted to commentary on developments at the Supreme Court, the New York Court of Appeals, and other state supreme courts nationwide. And he is the founder and Director of the Center for Judicial Process. For Albany Law School campus updates go to albanylaw.edu/coronavirus.

First appearing in a 1949 dissent authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” is being cited today by critics of perceived government overreach. Local, state, and federal authorities have directed citizens to self-isolate to prevent the spread of COVID-19, causing the biggest economic shutdown in modern history. Part of the effort to “flatten the curve”, these initially voluntary quarantines are quickly becoming legal mandates in certain states (and nations across the world). In California and New York, people violating stay-home orders for non-essential activities have been ticketed and cited with misdemeanors. Is there a point at which these restrictions on travel and assembly violate the rights inherent in America’s constitutional order? Many legal scholars agree the chief executive has quasi-wartime powers during national pandemics, but is there a limiting principle or expiration date? Join Professors Richard Epstein and Anthony Kreis as they discuss the viral menace and civil liberties in this podcast. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Prof. Anthony Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology

First appearing in a 1949 dissent authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” is being cited today by critics of perceived government overreach. Local, state, and federal authorities have directed citizens to self-isolate to prevent the spread of COVID-19, causing the biggest economic shutdown in modern history. Part of the effort to “flatten the curve”, these initially voluntary quarantines are quickly becoming legal mandates in certain states (and nations across the world). In California and New York, people violating stay-home orders for non-essential activities have been ticketed and cited with misdemeanors. Is there a point at which these restrictions on travel and assembly violate the rights inherent in America’s constitutional order? Many legal scholars agree the chief executive has quasi-wartime powers during national pandemics, but is there a limiting principle or expiration date? Join Professors Richard Epstein and Anthony Kreis as they discuss the viral menace and civil liberties in this podcast. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Prof. Anthony Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology

This supplemental episode examines the post-World War II trials in Nuremberg, Germany, during 1946, where US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson led the prosecution against prominent Nazi leaders such as Hermann Goering & Albert Speer. Some of the USA’s WWII allies had recommended executing or imprisoning these infamous figures without trial, but the Americans believed that it was important for them to get a fair trial that would publicly prove their guilt & expose their crimes. Dozens of high-ranking Nazi officials were charged with & convicted of waging aggressive war, violating laws of war, & engaging in atrocities against civilians (including the Holocaust). This podcast also gives an overview of the similar war crimes trials held in Tokyo that tried the Imperial Japanese military leaders. It concludes with a discussion of how the US federal government has given fewer legal rights to enemy suspects (such as suspected terrorists) during the 2000s than it did for Axis leaders during the 1940s.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/boomertomillennial/posts)

Vincent Bonventre, the Justice Robert H. Jackson Distinguished Professor at Albany Law School, talks about the roots of today’s hyper-partisan Supreme Court nomination battles, discusses the myth of constitutional “originalism,” and dispels the notion that a time existed when politics were not the chief motivator for a Court nomination. Miranda Warnings is hosted by past NYSBA President David Miranda.

Fatou Bintou Sallah a fellow at the ALC analyses the various transtional justice mechanisms employed by the first and second republics of the Gambia from a leadership perspective. Audio Clip: Robert H. Jackson Center

That Justice Be Done https://youtu.be/dY5ERWCTea4 National Archives and Records Administration - ARC 40152, LI 226-E-6957 - That Justice Be Done - DVD Copied by Ann Galloway. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Office of Strategic Services. Field Photographic Branch. (01/04/1943 - 10/01/1945). Film Report: Compares the Nazi sense of justice, as exemplified in aggressive war and atrocities, with that of the war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg. Excerpt from a speech by Adolf Hitler in which he proclaims his right to rid the world of inferior races; scenes of German atrocity victims and torture devices at the Buchenwald concentration camp. Foreign ministers of the three major powers sign the Moscow declaration in London. Robert H. Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor, gives his speech accepting appointment. source link https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.40152 copyright link https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Robert H. Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald discusses his now-iconic photograph of the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1964.