Podcasts about tube co

Mona interviews Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck on executive orders, birthright citizenship, Congress not doing its job, and whether Trump will defy the Supreme Court. Referenced Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – Commonly referred to as the "Steel Seizure Case," it involved President Truman's attempt to take control of steel mills during the Korean War. Korematsu v. United States (1944) – Upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II; later criticized but not formally overturned until its repudiation in Trump v. Hawaii. Ex Parte Endo (1944) – A companion case to Korematsu, ruling the detention of a loyal Japanese American citizen was unauthorized by statute. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – Upheld the Trump administration's travel ban but included the repudiation of Korematsu as part of the decision. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) – Affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. INS v. Chadha (1983) – Declared legislative vetoes unconstitutional, affecting the National Emergencies Act. TikTok-related Executive Orders and Litigation – Mentioned in the context of national security and executive overreach. Referenced Works: The U.S. Constitution: Article II: Presidential powers. 14th Amendment: Citizenship clause.

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 – Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Source: Excerpts from "Constitutional Law Lecture 1: The Structure of Government and Separation of Powers" I. Foundational Overview I begin by noting that the U.S. Constitution creates a structure of government designed to prevent tyranny. The three branches—Congress (legislative), the President (executive), and the courts (judicial)—operate under a system of separation of powers. This arrangement is complemented by checks and balances, whereby each branch can restrain the others. Federalism further divides power between the federal government and the states. Key Themes: Separation of Powers: This doctrine ensures that no single branch amasses unchecked authority. “Separation of powers is … the bedrock of the American constitutional system.” Checks and Balances: Each branch has devices (like vetoes or judicial review) to limit the other branches. “These interlocking mechanisms create a dynamic tension that fosters a balance of power.” Federalism: The Constitution specifies certain powers (enumerated) for the federal government and reserves others for the states. Judicial Review: Established in Marbury v. Madison, it empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws or actions. “Without Marbury, the checks and balances system would lack a critical enforcement mechanism.” Supremacy Clause: Federal law preempts conflicting state law, unifying legal standards throughout the nation. II. Constitutional Foundations Articles I, II, III, and VI Article I defines Congress's powers, including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Article II vests executive power in the President, granting authority as Commander-in-Chief and in foreign affairs. Article III establishes the judiciary, anchored by the Supreme Court. Article VI contains the Supremacy Clause, ensuring federal law supremacy. Federalism and Division of Power Enumerated Powers: Taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, defense. Reserved Powers: Those retained by states (e.g., police powers, education). Key Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld implied federal powers. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded Congress's reach over interstate commerce. III. Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Congress) Commerce Clause: Broad authority over interstate activities, yet subject to judicial limits (United States v. Lopez). Taxing and Spending: Congress can attach conditions to federal funds (South Dakota v. Dole). Necessary and Proper Clause: Permits laws essential to carrying out enumerated powers. Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must not transfer its core legislative function to another branch (INS v. Chadha). Executive Powers (President) Commander-in-Chief: Authority over military decisions. Appointment: Nominates judges and officials (with Senate approval). Veto: Power to reject legislation. Foreign Affairs: Treaties, diplomacy; recognized as broad in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Key Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – limited executive power over private property without legislative authorization. United States v. Nixon (1974) – limited executive privilege in criminal investigations. Judicial Powers Judicial Review: Power to invalidate unconstitutional statutes (Marbury v. Madison). Justiciability: Requires standing, ripeness, and mootness for a federal court to hear a case (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). Federal Question Jurisdiction: Authority over federal issues; example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) advanced civil rights jurisprudence. IV. Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts Congress → Executive: Impeachment, budgetary control. Executive → Congress: Veto power, executive orders. Judiciary → Both: Judicial review of legislative acts and executive actions (Cooper v. Aaron). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties Key examples include Korematsu v. United States (1944) and Ha --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 - Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Introduction This lecture provides an overview of the structure of the U.S. government, emphasizing the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, alongside foundational constitutional principles like federalism, judicial review, and constitutional supremacy. Key themes include: Separation of Powers: Division of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny. Checks and Balances: Mechanisms for interbranch accountability. Federalism: Division of powers between the federal government and states. Judicial Review: Courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional. Constitutional Supremacy: Federal law and the Constitution take precedence over state law. Part 1: Constitutional Foundations Overview of the Constitution: Articles I, II, and III establish legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article VI's Supremacy Clause ensures federal law overrides state laws. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review, making courts coequal enforcers of the Constitution. Federalism: Balances federal and state authority: Federal powers: Taxation, interstate commerce, national defense (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)). State powers: Police powers, education, intrastate commerce (reserved via the 10th Amendment). Key cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established federal supremacy and implied powers. Arizona v. United States (2012): Reinforced federal preemption over conflicting state laws. Printz v. United States (1997): Limited federal overreach on states' autonomy. Part 2: The Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Article I): Bicameral Congress enacts laws using powers such as: Commerce Clause (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal power; United States v. Lopez (1995) limited it). Taxing and Spending Power (e.g., South Dakota v. Dole (1987) upheld conditional federal funding). Necessary and Proper Clause: Authorizes laws to execute enumerated powers. Limits: Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must set clear guidelines when delegating authority. Presentment Clause: Bills must pass both chambers and be presented to the President (INS v. Chadha (1983) invalidated legislative vetoes). Executive Powers (Article II): Includes: Commander-in-Chief authority. Appointment power (subject to Senate confirmation; limited by NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014)). Veto power and foreign affairs authority (United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936)). Limits: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Prohibited unauthorized presidential seizure of private property. United States v. Nixon (1974): Limited executive privilege, affirming no one is above the law. Judicial Powers (Article III): Supreme Court exercises judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) and hears cases involving federal law or constitutional issues. Justiciability doctrines: Standing: E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). Ripeness, mootness, and political questions limit courts' jurisdiction. Federal judges' independence is ensured through life tenure and salary protections. Part 3: Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts: Legislative Checks on Executive: Impeachment (e.g., impeachments of Johnson, Clinton, Trump). Control of funding and oversight hearings. Executive Checks on Legislative: Veto power, executive orders, and signing statements. Judicial Checks on Both: Judicial review (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Cooper v. Aaron (1958) reaffirmed federal judicial supremacy). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties: Cases such as: Korematsu v. United States (1944): Upheld controversial wartime actions, later repudiated by Trump v. Hawaii (2018). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): Affirmed detainees' due process rights. Ex parte Milligan (1866): Limited military tribunals where civilian courts are operational. Practical Applications and Exam Strategies Hypotheticals to Consider: Delegation of power to agencies --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

International and national security law experts Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Deborah Pearlstein of Princeton University, and  Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School join for a conversation to explore Trump v, United States and the updated edition of Koh's landmark book, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Harold Koh, “The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century” Trump v. United States (2024) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case) (1952) The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794 Deborah Pearlstein, “Lawyering the Presidency,” The Georgetown Law Journal (2022) Deborah Pearlstein, “The Executive Branch Anticanon,” Fordham Law Review (2020) Matthew C. Waxman, “War Powers Reform: A Skeptical View”   Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

In this episode, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Deborah Pearlstein of Princeton University, and Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School  join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation to explore Trump v. United States and the updated edition of Koh's landmark book, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century. This program originally streamed live on July 1, 2024 as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall program series.      Resources:  Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century (2024)  Trump v. United States (2024)  Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)  United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)  Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case) (1952)  The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794  Deborah Pearlstein, “Lawyering the Presidency,” The Georgetown Law Journal (2022)  Deborah Pearlstein, “The Executive Branch Anticanon,” Fordham Law Review (2020)  Matthew C. Waxman, “War Powers Reform: A Skeptical View,” Yale L. J. Forum (2024)    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. 

The President of the United States possesses substantial authority granted by the Constitution to execute essential functions within the federal government. The President's powers encompass a wide array of responsibilities, including those of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the ability to make treaties with foreign nations, and the authority to appoint federal officers. As Commander-in-Chief, the President holds supreme command over military operations and the nation's defense. This role allows the President to deploy troops, formulate military strategy, and make swift decisions in times of crisis. The President's treaty-making power enables them to negotiate and enter into treaties with other countries, shaping foreign policy and international relations. However, these treaties require Senate approval, ensuring a system of checks and balances. Additionally, the President's appointment power allows them to select cabinet members, ambassadors, and federal judges, influencing the administration and judiciary. Despite these extensive powers, the President's authority is not absolute. The Constitution incorporates a system of checks and balances to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. Congressional oversight plays a crucial role in limiting presidential power. Congress controls federal spending, approves the budget, and has the authority to impeach and remove the President from office. Furthermore, the judiciary, through judicial review, can assess the constitutionality of executive actions and nullify those that violate the Constitution. Several landmark Supreme Court cases have established critical precedents that define the boundaries of presidential power. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952) restricted the President's ability to seize private property without congressional authorization, emphasizing the separation of powers. United States v Nixon (1974) affirmed that the President is not above the law and must comply with judicial orders, reinforcing the principle of accountability. In conclusion, the President of the United States possesses significant powers necessary for effective governance and national security. However, these powers are subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution's system of checks and balances. Congressional oversight, impeachment power, and judicial review ensure that the President's actions remain within constitutional boundaries and protect the principles of democratic governance. The dynamic balance between executive authority and accountability continues to shape the American political landscape, reflecting the enduring principles established by the Constitution and reinforced by judicial decisions. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The President of the United States possesses substantial authority granted by the Constitution to execute essential functions within the federal government. The President's powers encompass a wide array of responsibilities, including those of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the ability to make treaties with foreign nations, and the authority to appoint federal officers. As Commander-in-Chief, the President holds supreme command over military operations and the nation's defense. This role allows the President to deploy troops, formulate military strategy, and make swift decisions in times of crisis. The President's treaty-making power enables them to negotiate and enter into treaties with other countries, shaping foreign policy and international relations. However, these treaties require Senate approval, ensuring a system of checks and balances. Additionally, the President's appointment power allows them to select cabinet members, ambassadors, and federal judges, influencing the administration and judiciary. Despite these extensive powers, the President's authority is not absolute. The Constitution incorporates a system of checks and balances to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. Congressional oversight plays a crucial role in limiting presidential power. Congress controls federal spending, approves the budget, and has the authority to impeach and remove the President from office. Furthermore, the judiciary, through judicial review, can assess the constitutionality of executive actions and nullify those that violate the Constitution. Several landmark Supreme Court cases have established critical precedents that define the boundaries of presidential power. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952) restricted the President's ability to seize private property without congressional authorization, emphasizing the separation of powers. United States v Nixon (1974) affirmed that the President is not above the law and must comply with judicial orders, reinforcing the principle of accountability. In conclusion, the President of the United States possesses significant powers necessary for effective governance and national security. However, these powers are subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution's system of checks and balances. Congressional oversight, impeachment power, and judicial review ensure that the President's actions remain within constitutional boundaries and protect the principles of democratic governance. The dynamic balance between executive authority and accountability continues to shape the American political landscape, reflecting the enduring principles established by the Constitution and reinforced by judicial decisions. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

War Powers and National Security. Constitutional Framework The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President, creating a system of shared authority designed to prevent unilateral military action. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and regulate the military. The President, as commander-in-chief, directs the military and conducts foreign affairs. Historical Context and Legal Debates. Throughout American history, these powers have led to significant legal and political debates, particularly regarding the scope of the President's authority to engage in military actions without explicit Congressional authorization. Conflicts like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recent engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have tested these constitutional boundaries. Key Cases and Doctrines. The Prize Cases (1863): The Supreme Court held that the President has the authority to act in the absence of Congressional declaration of war if the United States is already under attack or facing an imminent threat. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): This case limited presidential power by ruling that President Truman could not seize steel mills during the Korean War without Congressional authorization. War Powers Resolution (1973): Passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, this act seeks to limit the President's ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without Congress's consent. Its effectiveness and constitutionality, however, have been subjects of ongoing debate. Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties. Balancing Act. In times of crisis, such as war, natural disasters, or public health emergencies, the government often invokes emergency powers to address the situation. While these powers are necessary for effective response, they sometimes conflict with individual rights and civil liberties, requiring a delicate balance. Historical Examples. Civil War: President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was a controversial exercise of emergency powers, later examined and circumscribed by the Supreme Court. World War II: The internment of Japanese Americans, authorized by Executive Order 9066, stands as a stark example of civil liberties being curtailed in the name of national security. Post-9/11: The USA PATRIOT Act and other measures enacted in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks raised significant concerns regarding surveillance, due process, and privacy. Judicial Oversight. The role of the judiciary in reviewing and sometimes curtailing the use of emergency powers is a critical aspect of maintaining the constitutional balance. Cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) reflect the courts' ongoing engagement with these issues, emphasizing the need for due process and legal safeguards even in times of national emergency. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Have you ever grasped the metal rod overhead on a subway or bus and wondered about the people who made them? This week Laura is sitting down with the CEO behind steel products at Phoenix Tube Company Inc., David Reale. David is sharing his story of growing up in the steel production industry, learning everything about manufacturing techniques to leadership skills from his father before stepping in and running the family-owned company as a second-generation leader. During this conversation, David reveals how watching his father lead paved the way for his leadership successes and how he stays accountable for learning new ways to influence and communicate among his team who has navigated change throughout the pandemic, generational leadership transitions, and more.   Here are a few things you'll learn during this conversation: The importance of choosing your words wisely Dealing with the ego as a leader, especially your own The difference between humiliation and humility Things to consider when succession planning in a family business   Stay tuned for the 24 Hour Influence Challenge where David invites younger employees to share their insights and ideas during your next meeting. He explains that working past the fear of putting a bad idea on the table is critical to being a valuable contributor to your team. David Reale is the CEO of the Phoenix Tube Company, a leading manufacturer of stainless steel tubing, rounds, squares, rectangles, and processed flat bar for ornamental and structural applications. Phoenix Tube Company offers the highest quality in products and customer service.   You can learn more about David and Phoenix Tube Company at www.phoenixtube.com   To learn more about Dr. Laura Sicola and how mastering influence can impact your success go to https://www.speakingtoinfluence.com/quickstart and download the quick start guide for mastering the three C's of influence.   You can connect with Laura in the following ways: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drlaurasicola LinkedIn Business Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/vocal-impact-productions/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWri2F_hhGQpMcD97DctJwA Facebook: Vocal Impact Productions Twitter: @Laura Sicola  Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/vocalimpactproductions Instagram: @VocalImpactProductions See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The separation of powers is a structural feature of the Constitution, but the precise boundaries between the institutions of the federal government are not always clearly demarcated in the text. Each of the cases we explore today involve the contested boundaries marking the constitutional separation of powers: Youngstown v. Sheet & Tube Co. (1952); Powell v. McCormack (1969); and INS v. Chadha (1983).

As the current Coronavirus situation has continued, we are now faced with growing questions about our civil liberties. We are thinking again about the actions the government can legitimately take in restricting the freedom of American citizens in a time of crisis. For example, when and how much can the government restrict your freedom of movement, speech, religion, or carrying on a business? Can the government even force you to be vaccinated? To gain some historical insight on these and many other questions, join Dr. Jeff Sikkenga, Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Executive Director of the Ashbrook Center, and Dr. Joseph Fornieri, a professor in Ashbrook’s Master of Arts in American History and Government and a professor of political science at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York for this special webinar. Joe is an expert on civil liberties and the Constitution, and the editor of Ashbrook’s First Amendment volume in our Core Documents Collection. This program aired live on 15 April 2020 at 1pm ET. All attendees of the live program will receive a PDF certificate of participation for continuing education hours, and the program will be recorded and made available in our YouTube and podcast archives. Suggested Readings (all excerpted): Ex Parte Milligan, 1866 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905 Shenck v. United States, 1919 Korematsu v. United States, 1944 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952 The post Insights from History: Fire in a Crowded Theater – Civil Liberties in Times of Emergency appeared first on Teaching American History.

As the current Coronavirus situation has continued, we are now faced with growing questions about our civil liberties. We are thinking again about the actions the government can legitimately take in restricting the freedom of American citizens in a time of crisis. For example, when and how much can the government restrict your freedom of movement, speech, religion, or carrying on a business? Can the government even force you to be vaccinated? To gain some historical insight on these and many other questions, join Dr. Jeff Sikkenga, Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Executive Director of the Ashbrook Center, and Dr. Joseph Fornieri, a professor in Ashbrook's Master of Arts in American History and Government and a professor of political science at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York for this special webinar. Joe is an expert on civil liberties and the Constitution, and the editor of Ashbrook's First Amendment volume in our Core Documents Collection. This program aired live on 15 April 2020 at 1pm ET. All attendees of the live program will receive a PDF certificate of participation for continuing education hours, and the program will be recorded and made available in our YouTube and podcast archives. Suggested Readings (all excerpted): Ex Parte Milligan, 1866 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905 Shenck v. United States, 1919 Korematsu v. United States, 1944 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952 The post Insights from History: Fire in a Crowded Theater – Civil Liberties in Times of Emergency appeared first on Teaching American History.

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to make its way across the United States, governments at both the federal and state levels are invoking statutes rarely seen in public discourse. The most recent? A little discussed act called the Defense Production Act of 1950 (the "DPA"), pursuant to which the President is given broad authority to force civilian contractors to provide materials to the federal government. But as President Trump invokes the DPA to force General Motors (GM) to enter into a contract for the production of ventilators, the question becomes: "Does he have the authority to do that?". And what does it mean to "promote the national defense", anyway? Emergencies make strange bedfellows...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/UHA5bRbwnCA #Coronavirus #Covid19 #DPA *** Discussed in this episode: "Trump invokes Defense Production Act to expand production of hospital masks and more" CNN - March 18, 2020 - Maegan Vazquez https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/politics/trump-defense-production-act-coronavirus/index.html "Hey Hoeg, in light of Trump invoking the DPA for GM to produce ventilators..." Tweet - March 28, 2020 - Joseph La Russa (@Joseph_La_Russa) https://twitter.com/Joseph_La_Russa/status/1243992799311269889 "Trump uses Defense Production Act to require GM to make ventilators" The Hill - March 27, 2020 - Brett Samuels https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/489909-trump-uses-defense-production-act-to-require-gm-to-make-ventilators "Statement from the President Regarding the Defense Production Act" March 27, 2020 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-regarding-defense-production-act/ "DEFENSE PRODUCTION" 50 USC Chapter 55 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 "PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS" 50 USC Subchapter I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55/subchapter-I "Priority in contracts and orders" 50 USC 4511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4511 "EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY" 50 USC Subchapter II https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55/subchapter-II "GENERAL PROVISIONS" 50 USC Subchapter III https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55/subchapter-III "Definitions" 50 USC 4552 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4552 "Definitions" 42 USC 5195a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195a "The Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for Congress" Congressional Research Service Report - Updated March 2, 2020 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43767.pdf US Constitution Article 1, Section 8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei "General welfare clause" Wikipedia Entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause US Constitution Article 2, Section 1 and Section 2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii "Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer" 343 US 579 (1952); Jackson Concurrence https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/579#writing-USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZC2 "The Alarming Scope of the President’s Emergency Powers" The Atlantic - January 2019 - Elizabeth Goitein https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/ "List of national emergencies in the United States" Wikipedia Entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

And we are back…with a second-consecutive deep-dive episode.  This week, Professors Chesney and Vladeck explore the iconic 1952 decision of the Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, better known as the “Steel...

The black letter law discussed in this episode is: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ261/PLAW-110publ261.pdf Minimization Procedures ( https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3718776/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-1.pdf ) Upstream and Downstream communications https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/press-room/statements/2017-04-28-702-statement.shtml 4th Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment 50 USC 1802 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802 United States v. Barona 56 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1995). https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/056/56.F3d.1087.90-50691.90-50694.90-50687.90-50686.90-50536.html United States v. Lachapelle 869 F.2d 488 (9th Cir. 1989) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/869/488/339834/ United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/126/290/2504822/ United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/297/case.html Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Justice Jackson Concurring Opinion https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/case.html#634 Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act https://apps.americanbar.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/act-section-215 FISC Memorandum Opinion by Judge Bates https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/s3fs-public/uploads/2013/08/162016974-FISA-court-opinion-with-exemptions.pdf 9/11 Commission Report https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/259/ Full Video of the FISA Panel https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/groups/public_services/law_national_security/events_cle/past_annual_review_conferences/27ARC-panel-6.html

The black letter law in this episode is: Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/Pages/Committee-on-Foreign-Investment-in-US.aspx Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) http://www.dss.mil/isp/foci/foci_info.html Executive Order 11858 establishing CFIUS https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11858.html Dubai World Ports Controversy https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uae-purchase-american-port-facilities Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ49/PLAW-110publ49.pdf 50 USC 4565 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4565 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/case.html Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, et al., No. 13-5315 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2014) https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B27E81AF31E360DA85257D16004E43E7/$file/13-5315-1502552.pdf Obama order compelling the divestiture of the Ralls Windfarm https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/28/order-signed-president-regarding-acquisition-four-us-wind-farm-project-c The proposed new CFIUS bill: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017 (S.2098) https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/d/8ddd5830-5e2b-4e7c-9c6f-2c206c953868/5A37EAB23418E531304A42ABA8CF0B2F.cfius.pdf David Fagan is a partner at Covington & Burling https://www.cov.com/