Podcast appearances and mentions of will baude

Jonathan Gienapp of Stanford University and Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School join Chief Scholar Thomas Donnelly to discuss Gienapp's new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. They review the history of originalism and debate the role of originalism in constitutional interpretation today. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall program series on October 8, 2024.  Resources:  Jonathan Gienapp, “Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique” (2024)  Stephen Sachs and Will Baude, “Originalism and the Law of the Past” (Law and History Review, 2019)  Michael Stokes Paulsen and Vasen Kesavan, “Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?” (90 Cal L. Rev. 291, 2002)  William Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs, “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” (76 Stanford L. Rev 1185, 2024)  Jud Campbell, “Four Views of the Nature of the Union” (47 Harvard J. Law & Public Policy 2, 2024)  Fletcher v. Peck (1810)  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  United States v. Rahimi (2024)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Stanford University professor Jonathan Gienapp, author of the new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique, is joined by Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School to discuss Gienapp's challenge to originalists' unspoken assumptions about the Constitution, the history of originalism as a constitutional methodology, and its role in constitutional interpretation today. Thomas Donnelly, chief content officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Jonathan Gienapp, “Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique” (2024) Stephen Sachs and Will Baude, “Originalism and the Law of the Past” (Law and History Review, 2019) Michael Stokes Paulsen and Vasen Kesavan, “Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?” (90 Cal L. Rev. 291, 2002) William Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs, “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” (76 Stanford L. Rev 1185, 2024) Jud Campbell, “Four Views of the Nature of the Union” (47 Harvard J. Law & Public Policy 2, 2024) Fletcher v. Peck (1810) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) United States v. Rahimi (2024) 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

The holidays are nearly here, and there's nothing more likely to encourage festive cheer than a wide-ranging, ultra-rambly Ruminant. Today's episode offers musings on Trump's removal from Colorado ballots, the complicated politics of abortion, and the enduring dumbness of populism. But those also looking for an uplifting seasonal message will find it in Jonah's thoughts on why gratitude is so important this time of year. Merry Christmas! Show Notes: - The Remnant with Frederick Kagan - Advisory Opinions on the Colorado Supreme Court decision - Advisory Opinions with Will Baude on Trump's presidential eligibility  - Yuval Levin on the anti-Trump 14th Amendment strategy - Jonah on Trump's dictatorial flirtations - The Dispatch Podcast on abortion law - Ramesh Ponnuru's The Party of Death - Jonah on Claudine Gay and diversity Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this emergency pod, Sarah and David discuss the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the state's primary and general election ballots. They take listeners through: —How they speed read court opinions; —The self-execution of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment; —The concept of non-justiciability (and how to pronounce it); —Problems with congressional drafting; —Debating incitement; and —What will SCOTUS do? Show Notes: -Prof. Will Baude on Section 3, Insurrection, and Trump -Coup de Target -Incitement of Insurrection Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week the Supreme Court announced that it adopted a formal code of ethics, endorsed by all nine Justices. In this episode, Professor Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law and Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Supreme Court ethics code and explore questions about how it will be applied and enforced.  Resources:   Supreme Court of the United States, Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct, Nov. 13, 2023  Daniel Epps and Will Baude, “Easy Win,” Divided Argument (podcast)   Steve Vladeck, “One and a Half Cheers for the Supreme Court,” One First substack, Nov. 16, 2023.  Steve Vladeck, “Opinion: The Supreme Court code of conduct misses this big thing,” CNN, Nov. 14, 2023   Steve Vladeck, “An Article III Inspector-General,” One First substack, Oct. 19, 2023.  Epps, Daniel and Trammell, Alan M., “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (March 8, 2023). Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming.     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. 

Listeners – our apologies. We've given you interesting topic after interesting topic, distinguished guest after distinguished guest. But we've strayed from the promise of the podcast, which is legal theory, and legal theory means arguing ad nauseam about whether we're positivists or normativists. For a recent intervention in that debate, we're delighted to bring you today's guest, William Baude, the Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School and a member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, to discuss his 2023 Scalia Lecture at Harvard Law School, “Beyond Textualism?”. We recommend you give the paper a skim before listening – Sam and David don't waste any time getting into it on this episode. David presses Baude on the relationship between textualism and democracy while Sam is skeptical that Baude's project is properly textualist at all. Next, we try to make sense of how the law-policy distinction maps onto the common law and the so-called general law past and present. Our tour continues to statutory interpretation before we get to the normativist-positivist debate (or: what's the difference between Will Baude and Adrian Vermeule?). We end by discussing Baude's recent foray into celebrity and whether the Constitution bars Donald Trump from running for president. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia “Finding Law” by Stephen Sachs “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” by Will Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs Legalism by Judith Shklar “The ‘Common-Good' Manifesto” by Will Baude and Stephen Sachs “The Real Enemies of Democracy” by Will Baude

For the first time in American history, the Speaker of the House of Representatives was ousted in a vote of no confidence.  On this weekly roundup, host Ron Steslow and guests Mike Madrid (Lincoln Project cofounder) and Scott Tranter (Investor and Advisor to Decision Desk HQ) discuss the Republican infighting, the reforms Matt Gaetz asked for, what it means, and where we go from here .  Then they break down Robert F. Kennedy Jr. teasing a third party presidential run, who it could help and who it could hurt Finally, they look at the organized labor stories all over the headlines and what the renewed strength of organized labor could mean for our elections.  Segments to look forward to: (02:28) McCarthy loses the Speaker's gavel  (33:45) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. flirts with a third party presidential run [Politicology+] The realignment in working class voters and rising organized labor Politicology+ is our private, ad-free version of this podcast, with subscriber-only episodes, strategy, and analysis. To join us there, visit politicology.com/plus or subscribe in Apple Podcasts. Listen to Will Baude on Advisory Opinions: https://bit.ly/3LN5snH Listen to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen on America's Constitution with Akhil Amar: Part 1: https://apple.co/48IK7W6 | Part 2: https://apple.co/48IKiRg Check out Hands Off my Rewards: https://handsoffmyrewards.com/ Follow this week's panel on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://twitter.com/stranter https://twitter.com/madrid_mike Related reading: Segment 1:  NYT—Behind Kevin McCarthy's Extraordinary Downfall as House Speaker - The New York Times CNN—October 3, 2023 - Kevin McCarthy ousted as Speaker of the House The Hill—5 takeaways from the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker | The Hill NYT—Gaetz's Ouster of McCarthy Draws Attention to His Ethics Issues - The New York Times WP—Months of bad blood between McCarthy and Democrats help sink his speakership Segment 2:  NYT—Robert Kennedy Jr. Hints Strongly at Third-Party Presidential Bid - The New York Times Politico—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s super PAC preps for him to run for president as an Independent - POLITICO The Dispatch —RFK JR. Could Play Spoiler, but Not for Biden - Chris Stirewalt - The Dispatch Echelon Insights Verified Voter Omnibus Nate Silver —RFK Jr. probably won't hurt Biden. He might even help him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two constitutional law scholars—Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen—recently published an in-depth article arguing that President Donald Trump is disqualified for running for reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, law professors Mark Graber and Michael McConnell join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss what Section 3 means and how it applies to disqualification from office; whether President Trump's actions qualify as engaging in insurrection; whether or not Section 3 is self-executing and who can enforce it, and more.   Resources:  William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” (Aug. 2023)  Mark Graber, “Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and Ours,” Just Security (Feb 2021)   Mark Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War (2023)  Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at .  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.

SEASON 2 EPISODE 11: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: “Donald Trump cannot BE president – cannot run FOR president – cannot BECOME president – cannot HOLD OFFICE – unless two thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on January 6th." That's from Will Baude, Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School, and member of the ultra-conservative FEDERALIST SOCIETY, and former clerk for Chief Justice Roberts. He was summarizing, for The New York Times, an article he and Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen will publish next year in the University of Pennsylvania law review. They insist that there is no doubt Trump has triggered the disqualification aspect of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and that it should be applied automatically by State Secretaries of State. “Section 3's disqualification rule may and must be followed – applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out – by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office.” The Federalist Society constitutional scholars say it's automatic. If you put Trump on the ballot, you are breaking the law. And as academic and theoretical and dilettantish as this all sounds, these guys think it should be made really real: “There are many ways that this could become a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide,” said Professor Paulsen. And Paulsen is a distinguished university chair and professor of Constitutional Law and Federal Courts at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. And Steven Calabresi, co-chairman of the Federalist Society, co-founder and co-chairman of the Federalist Society, says the Baude-Paulsen article is “a tour de force" that proves “Trump is INELIGIBLE TO BE ON the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” unquote – or they may be SUED. There could be enough to knock Trump off the ballot in individual states. And with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) having successfully sued to remove a January 6th insurrectionist from office in New Mexico, there is a guidebook to how to literally stop Trump before he starts. Also: Jack Smith really was pushing a Rocket Docket. He wants the J6 trial to launch on January 2. Meanwhile Trump's lawyers are so stupid they think the 2021 insurrection was three-and-a-half years ago, and his apologists like Jon Turley think January 2, 2024 is 18 days before the inauguration that the rest of us seem to believe doesn't happen until a YEAR and 18 days later. B-Block (23:00) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: In Iowa, Ron DeSantis literally phones it in. Senator Tommy Tuberville - of Florida? And when it doesn't work the fascists only have one play: yell louder. So Laura Ingraham says they MUST RUN ON HAVING REPEALED ROE-V-WADE. For once I agree with her! (27:45) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Unbanned Twitter QAnon loser has a new conspiracy and a new made-up source; Florida GOP County Chair allegedly plagiarized his university Honors Thesis from Wikipedia; And when Conspiracy Theories collide: the Antivaxxer "running" for POTUS is endorsed by the guy whose father claimed he assassinated the Antivaxxer's uncle. C-Block (34:15) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: My father so loved "I Went To Sullivant" that he literally listened as I read it to him one last time - and only when I finished did he pass away. Now THAT'S an endorsement!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and FutureWe talked to Rick Pildes (NYU Law) a few days after the Moore v. Harper oral argument, the “independent state legislature” case that instilled many worries about the Court opening a door to state legislatures overriding the popular vote. While those fears were unfounded (so to speak), this case raises other concerns that federal courts will get more intwined with elections and will block state courts from enforcing their constitutions, overturning impermissible gerrymanders, and providing remedies. In “Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and Future,” we talk about how this case is haunted not only by the 2020 election, a fake electors scheme based on the Electors Claus(e), and an insurrection; it is also haunted by ghost-of-election-past Bush v. Gore and the ghosts-of-election-future. We also ask, “Do You Hear What I Hear?” The left embracing Rehnquist's Bush v. Gore concurrence? Jed also observes a Festivus Airing of Grievances about conservatives' originalism errors and the Democrats' litigation strategy.  There was barely enough historical evidence to sustain one hour of oral argument, but the Court made it last for what felt like eight. We also talk to Rick about election law in an era of fragmentation(North Pole-arization?)Rick is the Sudler Family Professor at NYU Law School anda co-creator of the major casebook in this field, The Law of Democracy. He has served on President Biden appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. As a lawyer, Pildes has successfully argued voting-rights and election-law cases before the United States Supreme Court, and was part of the Emmy-nominated NBC breaking-news team for coverage of the 2000 Bush v. Gore contest. We discuss his recent articles and posts here:“The Age of Political Fragmentation,” Journal of Democracy (2021).“Election Law in an Age of Distrust,” Stanford Law Review Online (2022).Election Law Blog on Moore v. Harper here and here.We also discuss: Kate Shaw, Oral Argument in Moore v. Harper and the Perils of Finding “Compromise” on the Independent State Legislature Theory (Just Security)  Jed's twitter thread on Moore v. Harper and Democratic lawyers making problematic concessions here, relating to a proposed solution against remedies from Will Baude and former judge Michael McConnell here (the Atlantic).

David and Sarah are joined by Will Baude, professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, to discuss his review of Adrian Vermeule's new book Common Good Constitutionalism. What is “common good constitutionalism” and can David and Will convince Sarah that it's a thing? Is international law real? And does anyone have standing in any upcoming legal challenges to President Biden's student loan debt relief plan? Show Notes:-The American Prospect: What Common Good?-Reason: The "Common-Good" Manifesto-Ius & Iustitium: The Bourbons of Jurisprudence-Reason: The "Common-Good" Manifesto: Vermeule Responds

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court's emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week's episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court's the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court's approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court's emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump's immigration policies. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court's emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week's episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court's the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court's approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court's emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump's immigration policies. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

After a one-week work-caused hiatus, Karen and Steve are back to talk about the parenting ... challenges when it comes to little kids and organized sports, and how they may have turned a parenting fail into a parenting win (to be determined). They're then joined by University of Chicago law professors Will Baude and Judith Miller, who share their own experiences dividing labor with two kids; Judith's difficult jury duty experience as a new mother; and why Chicago is ... a beach town?!?

George Floyd’s death at the hands of the Minneapolis police has led to charges against several officers. But prosecution of cops is rare, and rarer still are successful suits brought by the victims themselves. Why is it so hard to hold the police accountable? We're joined by University of Chicago Law School professor Will Baude to discuss how qualified immunity shields the police. Also this week, a look at BigLaw's reaction to police brutality and racial injustice; a pair of attorneys accused of hurling a Molotov cocktail; and a judge who says calling an attorney the c-word was a compliment.

A Seventh Circuit extravaganza featuring Tacy Flint, Will Baude, and Jim Pfander. The episode was recorded before a live student audience at the University of Chicago Law School at the invitation of UChicago chapter of the Federalist Society.   Tacy Flint is a partner at Sidley Austin who has practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal courts of appeal. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer and Judge Richard Posner. Tacy is a UChicago law grad.   Will Baude is a professor at UChicago Law and the author of Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful? Will clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Michael McConnell and at the Institute for Justice.   Jim Pfander is a professor at Northwestern Law and the author of many articles examining Bivens and the importance of remedies against federal officers for constitutional violations. Jim clerked for Judge Levin Campbell. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Pretrial detention: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D01-23/C:17-1510:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2282458:S:0   Vicarious liability: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D04-03/C:17-3618:J:Hamilton:con:T:fnOp:N:2318717:S:0   Indianapolis forfeiture: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D02-26/C:17-2933:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2299727:S:0

Alicia Hickok and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a major Supreme Court case about public-union dues. The Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case that could have a huge effect on public-section unions and their membership. The case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will be heard on February 26 at the Court. The question in front of the nine Justices is if public-sector “agency shop” arrangements -- payments that workers represented by a union must pay even if they are not dues-paying members -- should be invalidated under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) that government employees who don’t belong to a union can be required to pay for union contract negotiating costs that benefit to all public employees, including non-union members. The Abood decision has been challenged in court several times, and an evenly divided Court couldn’t decide a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in 2016.  This time, a full Court will consider the issue. Alicia Hickok is a Partner at the law firm Drinker Biddle and a Lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She wrote an amicus brief in the Janus case on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, siding with Janus’s position. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Law School. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Janus with Will Baude siding with the union. 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.

Special guest Clark Neily talks qualified immunity: Police shootings, detaining a witness to a police shooting, and denying a pre-trial detainee access to a judge for 96 days. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Pauly v. White: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-2035.pdf Lincoln v. Turner: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10856-CV0.pdf Lincoln v. Barnes: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10327-CV0.pdf Jauch v. Choctaw County: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60690-CV0.pdf Aaron Nielson & Christopher Walker article: http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/66/1/nielson-walker.pdf Will Baude article: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2070&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

Indefinite detention of sex offenders, qualified immunity for social workers, the SEC’s unconstitutional ALJs, and a vexing property rights case. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Indefinite detention: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/01/153485P.pdf Social workers QI: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/01/03/15-55563.pdf SEC ALJs: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9586.pdf Regulatory takings: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0007n-06.pdf Will Baude on the unlawfulness of qualified immunity: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/10/is-it-time-to-hold-police-officers-accountable-for-constitutional-violations/?utm_term=.261a23fd8290

A panel of scholars discuss Professor Saikrishna Prakash's book, "Imperial From the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive,” published by Yale University Press. Professor John Harrison moderated the event, which features Sam Issacharoff of New York University School of Law, Will Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Tara Helfman of Syracuse University College of Law. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 26, 2016)