Podcast appearances and mentions of seth barrett tillman

In July, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed a criminal case charging former President Donald Trump with hoarding classified documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago and obstructing justice. Judge Cannon reasoned that the prosecutor in this case, Special Counsel Jack Smith, was not properly appointed by the Justice Department. Matthew Seligman of Stanford Law School and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston, who argued before Judge Cannon on opposite sides of this issue, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the legal basis for the special counsel role. Resources:  United States v. Nixon (1974)  Trump v. United States (2024)  Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman, Brief of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, United States v. Trump (March 21, 2024)  Matthew Seligman, Motion for Leave to File Brief by Constitutional Lawyers, Former Government Officials, and State Democracy Defenders Action as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Defendant Donald J. Trump's Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Trump (April 3, 2024)  Judge Aileen Cannon, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Based on Appointments Clause Violation, United States v. Trump (July 15, 2024)  Jack Smith, Brief for the United States, United States v. Trump, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (August 26, 2024)  Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. Donate

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, Democrat Marxists are all the same whether it's AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Bernie Sanders, and now Alvin Bragg, because they hate us and our country with a passion. These are the Marxists killing our country through an American form of Marxism and have now taken over our legal system from prosecutors to judges. We have people rotting in jail because of January 6th, but violent Hamas protesters who took over Columbia University walk free; the takeover of our justice system is the real insurrection in our country. Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and has been acting on behalf of Biden to interfere in the presidential election and destroy the rule of law. Judge Aileen Cannon is rightfully listening to arguments challenging Smith's appointment, and the response from the Democrat media is to drag Cannon through the mud. Later, Mark is joined by Seth Barrett Tillman, Professor from the Maynooth University School of Law & Criminology, about the arguments against Jack Smith's appointment and the latest updates from Aileen Cannon's courtroom. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With Liz sidelined, Andrew welcomes back friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman for an in-depth discussion of Anderson v. Griswold, a Colorado state court opinion that found by clear and convincing evidence that Donald Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021. What implications does that have? Listen and find out! This episode was released early for our Patrons and is a paid post on Patreon. Notes Anderson v. Griswoldhttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the two biggest stories: Matt Gaetz having ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and Donald Trump's civil trial in New York. All that AND an Andrew Was Wrong featuring more on the 14th Amendment. In the Patreon bonus, the two tackle a Liz Was Not Wrong about why Trump doesn't have a jury trial in New York. Hint: yes you can still make fun of Alina Habba! Notes Justice Engoron Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q== OAG v. Trump appellate decision https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ReQsiVyUL/PE7F5_PLUS_RuqoMw== CBS News story on Trump conceding to $27 million valuation for Mar-a-Lago https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-mar-a-lago-1-8-billion-own-company-said-it-was-too-high/?espv=1 SCOTUS orders 10/2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100223zor_5368.pdf Eastman petition for cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-1138/267263/20230519131455424_230516%20PWC%20corrected.pdf Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 FC indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909542/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Governor Newsom, Laphonza Butler, and the Constitution's Plain Text,' New Reform Club (Oct. 2, 2023, 3:54 PM), ;  Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen,' 28(2) Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth. circa Mar. 2024) (posted on: Sept. 12, 2023), . Is There A Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial of Equitable Defenses in New York?, 74 St. Johns L. Rev. 1 (2000) https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=lawreview -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Liz and Andrew first discuss developments in the other Trump indictment -- remember that one in New York? After that, they break down the breakdown in Trump's legal team. Happy Father's Day! Notes  NY Penal Law 175.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-k-offenses-involving-fraud/article-175-offenses-involving-false-written-statements/section-17510-falsifying-business-records-in-the-first-degree GA Code 21-2-562 https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-21-elections/chapter-2-elections-and-primaries-generally/article-15-miscellaneous-offenses/section-21-2-562-fraudulent-entries-unlawful-alteration-or-destruction-of-entries-unlawful-removal-of-documents-neglect-or-refusal-to-deliver-documents Bragg Motion to Remand https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.19.0.pdf Trump Lawyers Consider Revenge for Former Colleague https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-lawyers-consider-revenge-for-former-colleague  Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Tillman on Plagiarism in the Trump Litigation Briefs,' New Reform Club (June 16, 2023, 13:55 PM) https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/06/tillman-on-plagiarism-in-trump.html -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

THIS IS IT! Liz and Andrew answer all your legal questions regarding the anticipated imminent indictment of Donald Trump. Notes OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ OA 621 https://openargs.com/oa621-the-fbi-goes-to-mar-a-lago-this-is-big/ 18 U.S.C. § 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 NY Section 570  https://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article570.php  CPL 190.50 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/190.50 18 U.S. Code § 3056 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056 Tekni-Plex v. Meyner & Landis, 674 NE 2d 663 (NY 1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10926959041167260833 Liz ATL on Tacopina https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/trump-lawyer-joseph-tacopina-formerly-consulted-with-stormy-daniels-whoopsie/ Rice and Nuzzi New York Magazine article https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Who Can Be President of the United States?: Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Problem of Statutory Qualifications,' 5(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies 95 (2016) (peer review) Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Secretary Clinton Can Relax Because Section 2071 Disqualification Does Not Apply to the Presidency: A Response to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Cause of Action (with a Short Reply from Attorney General Mukasey)' (2015) -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Washington Correspondent Sean Whelan reports on the FBI search of the Mar-a-Lago home of former US president Donald Trump, while Seth Barrett Tillman, associate professor at Maynooth University's school of law and criminology analyses what may happen next.

Seth Barrett Tillman, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland, has written two revisionist articles about an incident from 1809 in North Carolina. In November of that year Jacob Henry was re-elected to the lower house of the North Carolina legislature. A fellow legislator moved to have Henry's seat declared vacant because Henry purportedly failed the state constitution's religious test. The next day there was a debate and the motion failed, allowing Henry to keep his seat. This unusual event has been cited by historians for different reasons. Some historians have contended that Henry was the victim of antisemitism and the failure to oust him was a sign that religious toleration had increased in the new nation. Whereas others have contended that the fact Henry was challenged at all demonstrates the bigotry of those who supported the challenge to Henry being seated. Tillman contends that recently unearthed newspaper accounts suggest the complexity and potential motives for the events are far from uncertain. In this interview we discuss Tillman's two recent articles on this event and what it portends for the historical profession's reliance upon primary documents to understand the past.  Seth Barrett Tillman, A Religious Test in America?: The 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry's North Carolina State Legislative Seat—A Re-Evaluation of the Primary Sources, 98(1) North Carolina Historical Review 1–41 (Jan. 2021). Seth Barrett Tillman, What Oath (if any) did Jacob Henry take in 1809?: Deconstructing the Historical Myths, American J. of Legal Hist.(forth. circa Mar. 2022). Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. 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

Seth Barrett Tillman, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland, has written two revisionist articles about an incident from 1809 in North Carolina. In November of that year Jacob Henry was re-elected to the lower house of the North Carolina legislature. A fellow legislator moved to have Henry's seat declared vacant because Henry purportedly failed the state constitution's religious test. The next day there was a debate and the motion failed, allowing Henry to keep his seat. This unusual event has been cited by historians for different reasons. Some historians have contended that Henry was the victim of antisemitism and the failure to oust him was a sign that religious toleration had increased in the new nation. Whereas others have contended that the fact Henry was challenged at all demonstrates the bigotry of those who supported the challenge to Henry being seated. Tillman contends that recently unearthed newspaper accounts suggest the complexity and potential motives for the events are far from uncertain. In this interview we discuss Tillman's two recent articles on this event and what it portends for the historical profession's reliance upon primary documents to understand the past.  Seth Barrett Tillman, A Religious Test in America?: The 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry's North Carolina State Legislative Seat—A Re-Evaluation of the Primary Sources, 98(1) North Carolina Historical Review 1–41 (Jan. 2021). Seth Barrett Tillman, What Oath (if any) did Jacob Henry take in 1809?: Deconstructing the Historical Myths, American J. of Legal Hist.(forth. circa Mar. 2022). Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Seth Barrett Tillman, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland, has written two revisionist articles about an incident from 1809 in North Carolina. In November of that year Jacob Henry was re-elected to the lower house of the North Carolina legislature. A fellow legislator moved to have Henry's seat declared vacant because Henry purportedly failed the state constitution's religious test. The next day there was a debate and the motion failed, allowing Henry to keep his seat. This unusual event has been cited by historians for different reasons. Some historians have contended that Henry was the victim of antisemitism and the failure to oust him was a sign that religious toleration had increased in the new nation. Whereas others have contended that the fact Henry was challenged at all demonstrates the bigotry of those who supported the challenge to Henry being seated. Tillman contends that recently unearthed newspaper accounts suggest the complexity and potential motives for the events are far from uncertain. In this interview we discuss Tillman's two recent articles on this event and what it portends for the historical profession's reliance upon primary documents to understand the past.  Seth Barrett Tillman, A Religious Test in America?: The 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry's North Carolina State Legislative Seat—A Re-Evaluation of the Primary Sources, 98(1) North Carolina Historical Review 1–41 (Jan. 2021). Seth Barrett Tillman, What Oath (if any) did Jacob Henry take in 1809?: Deconstructing the Historical Myths, American J. of Legal Hist.(forth. circa Mar. 2022). Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Seth Barrett Tillman, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland, has written two revisionist articles about an incident from 1809 in North Carolina. In November of that year Jacob Henry was re-elected to the lower house of the North Carolina legislature. A fellow legislator moved to have Henry's seat declared vacant because Henry purportedly failed the state constitution's religious test. The next day there was a debate and the motion failed, allowing Henry to keep his seat. This unusual event has been cited by historians for different reasons. Some historians have contended that Henry was the victim of antisemitism and the failure to oust him was a sign that religious toleration had increased in the new nation. Whereas others have contended that the fact Henry was challenged at all demonstrates the bigotry of those who supported the challenge to Henry being seated. Tillman contends that recently unearthed newspaper accounts suggest the complexity and potential motives for the events are far from uncertain. In this interview we discuss Tillman's two recent articles on this event and what it portends for the historical profession's reliance upon primary documents to understand the past.  Seth Barrett Tillman, A Religious Test in America?: The 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry's North Carolina State Legislative Seat—A Re-Evaluation of the Primary Sources, 98(1) North Carolina Historical Review 1–41 (Jan. 2021). Seth Barrett Tillman, What Oath (if any) did Jacob Henry take in 1809?: Deconstructing the Historical Myths, American J. of Legal Hist.(forth. circa Mar. 2022). Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Now we continue our coverage of the US presidential election, and President Trump's incredible remarks last night with Seth Barrett Tillman, law Lecturer at Maynooth University Department of La. Listen and subscribe to The Pat Kenny Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify.      Download, listen and subscribe on the Newstalk App.    You can also listen to Newstalk live on newstalk.com or on Alexa, by adding the Newstalk skill and asking: 'Alexa, play Newstalk'.    

We talk all things the American Election 2020 with Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We talk all things the American Election 2020 with Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With just under two months to go until the US elections and former Vice President Joe Biden leading the opinion polls. We heard from Seth Barrett Tillman about Trump’s performance in the election campaign so far. Listen and subscribe to The Pat Kenny Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify.      Download, listen and subscribe on the Newstalk App.    You can also listen to Newstalk live on newstalk.com or on Alexa, by adding the Newstalk skill and asking: 'Alexa, play Newstalk'.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer in the Maynooth University Department of Law speaks to the Pat Kenny show. Listen and subscribe to The Pat Kenny Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify.    Download, listen and subscribe on the Newstalk App.   You can also listen to Newstalk live on newstalk.com or on Alexa, by adding the Newstalk skill and asking: 'Alexa, play Newstalk'

Today's episode brings you some good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to Florida's effort to restore the vote to felons who have completed their sentences -- and the Republicans' ongoing efforts to stop it. We also revisit the emoluments clause litigations pending in two jurisdictions as well as tackle a novel question from one of our listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong / Andrew Was Right segment regarding emoluments. Friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman writes in to correct us on two procedural issues and also to venture an opinion that any future emoluments cases would have to be brought by both houses of Congress. Find out why Andrew disagrees and stands by his original recommendation in Episode 361 that Nancy Pelosi authorize a new vote by the full House of Representatives to re-file the case originally brought in Blumenthal v. Trump. Then it's time for our main segment on the breaking decision out of the 11th Circuit striking down the Florida legislature's effort to gut Amendment 4 (which was meant to restore voting rights to ex-felons). Find out why the court ruled the way it did, what happens next, and why there may be cause for optimism in the Sunshine State! After that, it's time for a fascinating, clever, but (sadly) wrong suggestion from a listener regarding a writ of mandamus and the current logjam in Congress. We end, as always, with #T3BE, and Thomas's seven-question winning streak on the line regarding a contract and an unfortunate foreman who suffers an accident prior to starting his duties. Will Thomas prevail? Listen and find out! And don't forget to play along by sharing out the show on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links In the opening segment, Andrew breaks down the Supreme Court case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019). You'll want to read the 11th Circuit's opinion for yourself. We last discussed the Florida legislature's efforts to gut Amendment 4 back in Episode 266. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

In this episode, Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer in the Maynooth University Department of Law, discusses his draft article, "New Sources on the 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry's North Carolina State Legislative Seat." Tillman begins by explaining that Jacob Henry was a Jew elected to the North Carolina legislature in 1808 and again in 1809, when another legislator invoked the North Carolina Constitution's religious test against him. Tillman describes the different arguments raised by Henry, including that a legislative seat was not an "office" under the Constitution, which other historians have called "far-fetched." Tillman uses existing and newly-discovered evidence to show that the legislature appears to have found the argument compelling, and reflects on the possibility that the effort to remove Henry may actually have represented the beginnings of a move to eliminate the religious test. Tillman is on Twitter at @SethBTillman. This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! Download Link

Today's episode features a grab-bag of stories that have been making the rounds, including the recent ruling out of the Second Circuit regarding Donald Trump's use of Twitter, a setback for our buddy Brian Frosh's efforts to enforce the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and an update on the real-word consequences of the Janus v. AFSCME decision we decry so much around here. We begin with the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, which established that a government official may convert a social media platform such as Twitter into a "limited use public forum," from which he may not block users on the basis of the political content of their speech -- i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Almost no one understands this decision; we'll make sure you're one of the lucky ones who do! Then, it's time for a breakdown of the 4th Circuit's ruling in In re Trump, which directs the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit (and pending discovery) against Trump in the lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Find out what this case is all about, whether the outcome is reasonable, and what's next. After that, it's time for a quick look at the real-world implications of the Janus v. AFSCME decision allowing public-sector union employees to withhold a portion of their dues otherwise allocated for administrative duties under... some crazy right-wing theory that something something something, because Sam Alito knows diminishing the power of unions will hurt Democrats. But what else did that decision do? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for the most controversial #TTTBE yet, in which we discover the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (regarding larceny and robbery) ... or do we? You won't want to miss this one! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump (the Twitter case), and here to check out the Fourth Circuit's ruling in In Re Trump (the Emoluments case). We first covered the emoluments case way back in Episode 78, and we interviewed Seth Barrett Tillman for his unique take in Episode 35 and Episode 36. We learned that bad stuff was coming in the emoluments litigation in Episode 239 when the 4th Circuit issued a stay of all discovery; you can read that stay order here. Finally, click here to read the LA Progressive article on Mark Janus and his conservative activism. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of a busy week's developments in the Trump Administration's trip up Yodel Mountain, including the surprising revelation that Michael Cohen has audio tapes of his conversations with Donald Trump.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a challenging listener question regarding legal ethics and summer associates that hearkens back to our last episode. The main segment tackles an entire week's worth of yodeling, including the Cohen tapes, the emoluments lawsuit, and the Manafort trial.  Phew! After that, we check in with our buddy Andrew Seidel from the FFRF about a recent victory in the 9th Circuit regarding prayers at public school board meetings. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 involving the questionable sale of a used car.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific.  And, of course, participate in the questions thread! Here's the Reuters report that there are 12 Cohen-Trump tapes; we've heard just part of the first one regarding Karen McDougal, whom we first discussed back in Episode 158. You can read the Emoluments ruling for yourself; we covered this most recently back in Episodes 160 and 162.  For our original two-part interview with Seth Barrett Tillman, check out Episodes 35 and 36. Some documents from the Manafort trial:  2018.07.22 Yanukovich govt response; 2018.07.20 Yanukovich motion in limine; 2018.07.25 orders on motions in limine; and 2018.07.26 government jury response.  And, of course, you should take a look at the government's Exhibit List. We discussed the "Bernie Sanders" lawsuit against the DNC back in Episode 106. Finally, for some good news, check out the 9th Circuit's opinion in FFRF v. Chino Valley Unified School District; we discussed Town of Greece v. Galloway in Episode 85. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the things Andrew Was Right about over the past few weeks (yay!) as well as the things Andrew Was Wrong about (boo!).  It's Schrödinger's Andrew Day! In the pre-show segment, the guys go through the scenario for all of our Opening Arguments Community March Madness potential winners.  After that, it's time for Andrew Was Right! (TM).  We cover the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum and what it means for Yodel Mountain, as well as both the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by our next Attorney General, Stormy Daniels.  You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for Andrew Was Wrong (TM), in Andrew owns up to a few corrections about Watergate and revisits the emoluments lawsuit discussed way back in Episode 78.  Andrew was skeptical then; has he changed his mind? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #69 that questions your knowledge of the "firefighter's rule" and whether it protects cops who get sideswiped.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast.  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik. This is the Amended Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels; you can also read the Notice of Removal filed by EC and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by Daniels. Stormy's expedited trial motion is pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4. This is the Washington Post article on Alexander Butterfield, which is definitely worth a read. Here's the District Court's opinion in the emoluments litigation, which we first discussed back in Episode 78. If you want to dive more into emoluments, you can read Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), or listen to our two-parter with originalist Seth Barrett Tillman:  Episode 35 (Part 1) and Episode 36 (Part 2). Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. In the year since he took office, a variety of novel constitutional issues have arisen, from the interpretation of the Emoluments Clauses, to the constitutionality of Executive Orders on immigration, and even the meaning of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In this episode, we look at the past year of the Trump presidency and what it means for our Constitution. Joining us to discuss the past year of constitutional debates are two of America’s leading scholars of constitutional law. Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. He filed an amicus brief in the CREW v. Trump and DC and Maryland v. Trump lawsuits on behalf of another legal scholar, Seth Barrett Tillman. Lisa Manheim is an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law and co-author of a recently published book, intended for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, called The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, an instructor in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in Ireland, is one of the few scholars to have researched and written about the history of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Tillman has also submitted amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) in three recent federal cases regarding whether President Trump has violated the clause. In this podcast interview, Prof. Tillman discusses the historical origins of the clause, its original understanding during the early republic, and its possible application to the Trump presidency. In short, Prof. Tillman contends that the clause does not apply to elective offices; rather, it only applies to appointed offices in the federal government. Although conceding that there are good reasons to want such a clause to apply to the President, he contends that it is simply not a proper understanding of the clause to apply it to President Trump. Here’s some reading: Prof. Tillman and Josh Blackman’s New York Times op-ed on Trump and the emoluments clause. Prof. Tillman’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on Trump and the emoluments clause Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman, an instructor in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in Ireland, is one of the few scholars to have researched and written about the history of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Tillman has also submitted amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) in three recent federal cases regarding whether President Trump has violated the clause. In this podcast interview, Prof. Tillman discusses the historical origins of the clause, its original understanding during the early republic, and its possible application to the Trump presidency. In short, Prof. Tillman contends that the clause does not apply to elective offices; rather, it only applies to appointed offices in the federal government. Although conceding that there are good reasons to want such a clause to apply to the President, he contends that it is simply not a proper understanding of the clause to apply it to President Trump. Here’s some reading: Prof. Tillman and Josh Blackman’s New York Times op-ed on Trump and the emoluments clause. Prof. Tillman’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on Trump and the emoluments clause Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman, an instructor in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in Ireland, is one of the few scholars to have researched and written about the history of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Tillman has also submitted amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) in three recent federal cases regarding whether President Trump has violated the clause. In this podcast interview, Prof. Tillman discusses the historical origins of the clause, its original understanding during the early republic, and its possible application to the Trump presidency. In short, Prof. Tillman contends that the clause does not apply to elective offices; rather, it only applies to appointed offices in the federal government. Although conceding that there are good reasons to want such a clause to apply to the President, he contends that it is simply not a proper understanding of the clause to apply it to President Trump. Here’s some reading: Prof. Tillman and Josh Blackman’s New York Times op-ed on Trump and the emoluments clause. Prof. Tillman’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on Trump and the emoluments clause Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman, an instructor in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in Ireland, is one of the few scholars to have researched and written about the history of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Tillman has also submitted amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) in three recent federal cases regarding whether President Trump has violated the clause. In this podcast interview, Prof. Tillman discusses the historical origins of the clause, its original understanding during the early republic, and its possible application to the Trump presidency. In short, Prof. Tillman contends that the clause does not apply to elective offices; rather, it only applies to appointed offices in the federal government. Although conceding that there are good reasons to want such a clause to apply to the President, he contends that it is simply not a proper understanding of the clause to apply it to President Trump. Here’s some reading: Prof. Tillman and Josh Blackman’s New York Times op-ed on Trump and the emoluments clause. Prof. Tillman’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on Trump and the emoluments clause Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman, an instructor in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in Ireland, is one of the few scholars to have researched and written about the history of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Tillman has also submitted amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) in three recent federal cases regarding whether President Trump has violated the clause. In this podcast interview, Prof. Tillman discusses the historical origins of the clause, its original understanding during the early republic, and its possible application to the Trump presidency. In short, Prof. Tillman contends that the clause does not apply to elective offices; rather, it only applies to appointed offices in the federal government. Although conceding that there are good reasons to want such a clause to apply to the President, he contends that it is simply not a proper understanding of the clause to apply it to President Trump. Here’s some reading: Prof. Tillman and Josh Blackman’s New York Times op-ed on Trump and the emoluments clause. Prof. Tillman’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on Trump and the emoluments clause Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For today's show, we dive deeper into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. First, however, we answer a question from Patron Christopher Arguin regarding cross-examination that was inspired by TTTBE #30. In the main segment, Andrew and Andrew continue to discuss church-state separation and the First Amendment. Next, our friend Seth Barrett Tillman provides us with an update on the CREW v. Trump lawsuit regarding emoluments. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #31 regarding the Statute of Frauds.  Listen and find out if Thomas's improbable one-question winning streak will continue -- and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None!  But this is your last chance to join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017!  Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links We first spoke with Andrew Seidel regarding Trinity Lutheran during Episode 82. Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. We first discussed Trinity Lutheran during our three-part "You Be The Supreme Court" series; part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, part 2 is available here, and part 3 is available here. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy. Finally, please check out Andrew Seidel's great work at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Seth Barrett Tillman has written “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History and Scholarship,” an article about the famous case that is popularly thought to demonstrate a conflict between the President and the federal courts during the American Civil War. Tillman’s article is an effort to revise the standard historical understanding of the case called Ex Parte Merryman. In the spring of 1861, just as the hostilities had begun in the Civil War, famously issued an order to the U.S. Army granting army officials discretion to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if resistance or treasonous activity were encountered in Union territory. That spring, as soldiers poured into the Washington, D.C. area through Maryland, the Army was confronted with popular protests and violence by civilians. One suspect was John Merryman, a young man from a prominent Maryland family. Merryman hired lawyers to seek his release via the traditional method of asking the federal courts for an order to release Merryman pending his trial. However, Merryman was not initially released and was confined in Ft. McHenry, a military base near the port of Baltimore. The traditional account of the case portrays Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney as heroically seeking to vindicate the rights of a civilian prisoner wrongly held by the military and Lincoln as defying an order to comply with the Constitution. In this podcast Professor Tillman, a lecturer in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in County Kildare, Ireland, discusses his arguments that the traditional account of the Merryman case is built upon multiple myths. If Tillman’s view of the case is correct, it holds the potential for overturning our understanding of this important period in constitutional history and civil-military relations. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman has written “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History and Scholarship,” an article about the famous case that is popularly thought to demonstrate a conflict between the President and the federal courts during the American Civil War. Tillman’s article is an effort to revise the standard historical understanding of the case called Ex Parte Merryman. In the spring of 1861, just as the hostilities had begun in the Civil War, famously issued an order to the U.S. Army granting army officials discretion to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if resistance or treasonous activity were encountered in Union territory. That spring, as soldiers poured into the Washington, D.C. area through Maryland, the Army was confronted with popular protests and violence by civilians. One suspect was John Merryman, a young man from a prominent Maryland family. Merryman hired lawyers to seek his release via the traditional method of asking the federal courts for an order to release Merryman pending his trial. However, Merryman was not initially released and was confined in Ft. McHenry, a military base near the port of Baltimore. The traditional account of the case portrays Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney as heroically seeking to vindicate the rights of a civilian prisoner wrongly held by the military and Lincoln as defying an order to comply with the Constitution. In this podcast Professor Tillman, a lecturer in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in County Kildare, Ireland, discusses his arguments that the traditional account of the Merryman case is built upon multiple myths. If Tillman’s view of the case is correct, it holds the potential for overturning our understanding of this important period in constitutional history and civil-military relations. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman has written “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History and Scholarship,” an article about the famous case that is popularly thought to demonstrate a conflict between the President and the federal courts during the American Civil War. Tillman’s article is an effort to revise the standard historical understanding of the case called Ex Parte Merryman. In the spring of 1861, just as the hostilities had begun in the Civil War, famously issued an order to the U.S. Army granting army officials discretion to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if resistance or treasonous activity were encountered in Union territory. That spring, as soldiers poured into the Washington, D.C. area through Maryland, the Army was confronted with popular protests and violence by civilians. One suspect was John Merryman, a young man from a prominent Maryland family. Merryman hired lawyers to seek his release via the traditional method of asking the federal courts for an order to release Merryman pending his trial. However, Merryman was not initially released and was confined in Ft. McHenry, a military base near the port of Baltimore. The traditional account of the case portrays Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney as heroically seeking to vindicate the rights of a civilian prisoner wrongly held by the military and Lincoln as defying an order to comply with the Constitution. In this podcast Professor Tillman, a lecturer in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in County Kildare, Ireland, discusses his arguments that the traditional account of the Merryman case is built upon multiple myths. If Tillman’s view of the case is correct, it holds the potential for overturning our understanding of this important period in constitutional history and civil-military relations. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman has written “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History and Scholarship,” an article about the famous case that is popularly thought to demonstrate a conflict between the President and the federal courts during the American Civil War. Tillman’s article is an effort to revise the standard historical understanding of the case called Ex Parte Merryman. In the spring of 1861, just as the hostilities had begun in the Civil War, famously issued an order to the U.S. Army granting army officials discretion to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if resistance or treasonous activity were encountered in Union territory. That spring, as soldiers poured into the Washington, D.C. area through Maryland, the Army was confronted with popular protests and violence by civilians. One suspect was John Merryman, a young man from a prominent Maryland family. Merryman hired lawyers to seek his release via the traditional method of asking the federal courts for an order to release Merryman pending his trial. However, Merryman was not initially released and was confined in Ft. McHenry, a military base near the port of Baltimore. The traditional account of the case portrays Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney as heroically seeking to vindicate the rights of a civilian prisoner wrongly held by the military and Lincoln as defying an order to comply with the Constitution. In this podcast Professor Tillman, a lecturer in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in County Kildare, Ireland, discusses his arguments that the traditional account of the Merryman case is built upon multiple myths. If Tillman’s view of the case is correct, it holds the potential for overturning our understanding of this important period in constitutional history and civil-military relations. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Barrett Tillman has written “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History and Scholarship,” an article about the famous case that is popularly thought to demonstrate a conflict between the President and the federal courts during the American Civil War. Tillman’s article is an effort to revise the standard historical understanding of the case called Ex Parte Merryman. In the spring of 1861, just as the hostilities had begun in the Civil War, famously issued an order to the U.S. Army granting army officials discretion to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if resistance or treasonous activity were encountered in Union territory. That spring, as soldiers poured into the Washington, D.C. area through Maryland, the Army was confronted with popular protests and violence by civilians. One suspect was John Merryman, a young man from a prominent Maryland family. Merryman hired lawyers to seek his release via the traditional method of asking the federal courts for an order to release Merryman pending his trial. However, Merryman was not initially released and was confined in Ft. McHenry, a military base near the port of Baltimore. The traditional account of the case portrays Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney as heroically seeking to vindicate the rights of a civilian prisoner wrongly held by the military and Lincoln as defying an order to comply with the Constitution. In this podcast Professor Tillman, a lecturer in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in County Kildare, Ireland, discusses his arguments that the traditional account of the Merryman case is built upon multiple myths. If Tillman’s view of the case is correct, it holds the potential for overturning our understanding of this important period in constitutional history and civil-military relations. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a listener question from Erik Alsman who asks whether the Supreme Court has the power to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional.  Along the way we'll learn a little bit about the history of judicial review in the United States. In our main segment, we conclude our interview with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law, exploring Tillman's thesis that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis.  Afterwards, Thomas and Andrew break down the argument and offer their views on the issue. Next, we air some listener comments and questions regarding the difference between a "barrister" and a "solicitor" in UK law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about the admissibility of a hearsay statement during a civil trial.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links This is the text of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which the Supreme Court articulated -- some say, invented! -- the doctrine of judicial review. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, by addressing another Trump-related question:  Does a recent report claiming that 50+ Trump electors are ineligible provide the relief of preventing Trump from assuming the Presidency?  We delve into the report and answer the question in a way that may surprise you. Our main interview segment is with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law.  Tillman's thesis is that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Next, we answer a listener question from William Stemmler about officeholders in the line of Presidential Succession who are themselves ineligible to become President.  Could Donald Trump nominate George W. Bush to be Secretary of State?  Find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about pre-nuptial agreements.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Here's the Raw Story report on disqualified Trump electors, and the full text of the report can be downloaded from Alternet. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Written by Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt, Constitutional Cliffhangers envisions six constitutional controversies that could arise in selecting, replacing, and punishing a U.S. president. None of Kalt’s scenarios, such as the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, a president pardoning himself, or a two-term president attempting to stay in power, have actually occurred, though some have come close. In the book Kalt provides a legal guide to navigating these situations, should they ever occur, and in the process offers insight into pertinent structural and procedural provisions in the Constitution.? Brian Kalt is joined by critical commenter Seth Barrett Tillman, a Lecturer in the Department of Law at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, to discuss the book.