Podcasts about youngstown sheet

Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952) sets forth a framework that is widely used to assess presidential power. Center for Civic Education

Hey all! Welcome to another episode of Mr. P.'s Tales from the Road! In this edition, we head back to Youngstown, Ohio to tell the tale of “Black Monday,” the beginning of the downfall of America's industrial might, and the abandoned community of company homes that were built by the Youngstown Sheet and Tube, home to the thousands of workers that once worked steel there. Known as IRON SOUP, this decaying community can still be visited and marveled at today, a time capsule of a moment in history where steel was king. Tales and history abound, so get yourself a crisp hard cider, get your mitts on a thick Reuben sandwich (complete with pickle), get comfy, listen in and enjoy the show! Have a great weekend and we'll see you in the next episode! -Mr. P. Also now available on APPLE PODCAST!: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mr-p-s-tales-from-the-road/id1717990959 Iron Soup Related Sites: Iron Soup's Atlas Obscura entry: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/iron-soup Iron Soup's Main Page: https://tsokoloff.wixsite.com/ironsoup MR. P. INFO: The majority of my work gets published at the Mr. P. Explores Facebook Community:⁠ https://www.facebook.com/MrPExplores/⁠  Stop by for full photo explorations, history and stories told from the road! Mr. P. Explores Instagram (extras that never make the site or videos, and much more!):⁠ https://www.instagram.com/mr.p_explores/⁠@mr.p_explores TWITTER (X?):⁠ https://twitter.com/ExploresMr⁠ @ExploresMr  (come on over and say hello!)  Thanks all, and have a great week! I am also now on VERO, @mrpexplores or directly at:⁠ ⁠⁠https://vero.co/mrpexplores⁠

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

A group of 14-year-olds encounter a dogman in an abandoned steel mill in Youngstown, Ohio 1987. Link to see Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Blast Furnace "Jeanette" https://matchbookflashback.libsyn.com/site/12-youngstown-dogman     Special thanks to Matt Emch for sharing his experience. Matt Emch's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Planetfourtwelve?sub_confirmation=1 Matt Emch's Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/share/WN8Uv41Uota7k5Wg/?mibextid=K35XfP   Created by Alec Ogg Parasaur Studios © 2024

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

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

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

Lifelong Friendships, Youngstown Ohio stories, Family Storytelling. Michael's Dad - William J. Malley - and his buddy Tom. Male Bonding, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Steel Mill. Divisions, Breaks, Death & Dying, Healing & Forgiveness in Men's Friendships. Loss & Regret, Memories & Unresolved Relationships. (Music: Courtesy of Adrian Von Ziegler, “Your Dying Heart.” )

Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952) sets forth a framework that is widely used to assess presidential power. Center for Civic Education

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

In this episode I discuss the Ukraine call and the president's authority to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption per Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v Sawyer and H.R.4278 - Ukraine Support Act.

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.

The government is shut down and Trump and his beloved wall are back in the news. Trump is eager to get the wall built, but a lot of his party and the majority of democrats are against it. He’s threatening to call the country into a state of emergency and get the wall built via emergency funds. Does he have the power to do that? Matt and Tony dive into the history of National Emergencies and discuss whether or not declaring a national emergency for the wall are within Trump’s powers. Highlights: [04:22] – Schumer and Pelosi – The worlds worst public speakers [05:05] – Emergency procedures for The President [10:18] – Youngstown Sheet, 1952 [14:20] – The National Emergencies Act [16:49] – George W Bush sanctions Zimbabwe [22:16] – Adam Schiff beefs with Trump [23:51] – The Presidents power and authority [26:33] – The fence and the war on drugs The Takeaway – This stand off and shutdown doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the finish line. Hollywood Improv Ticket Link: https://improv.com/hollywood/event/legally+insane+with+matt+ritter+and+tony+sam%21/9003415/ Twitter: @mattritter1 @toekneesam   Website: www.cascademedia.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.

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

40 years after ‘Black Monday,’ when 5,000 employees of Youngstown Sheet and Tube lost their jobs, we still feel the effects today. With President Trump promising the return of blue collar jobs in factories and mines, the 40th anniversary of Black Monday falls at the perfect time. Salena is joined by Paul Sracic, Chair of the Department of Politics and International Relations at Youngstown State University in Ohio, to discuss the legacy of Youngstown’s steel industry and how it relates to Trump’s administration.

I was first introduced to Jesus the Healer while working at the YOungstown Sheet and Tube Company. I knew about His virgin birth, and His dying on the cross, but I knew nothing about how He healed everyone who came to Him no matter what their condition was. As I read through the Gospel, I was convinced that Jesus detested disease, and was passionate about removing it from peoples' lives.

I was first introduced to Jesus the Healer while working at the YOungstown Sheet and Tube Company. I knew about His virgin birth, and His dying on the cross, but I knew nothing about how He healed everyone who came to Him no matter what their condition was. As I read through the Gospel, I was convinced that Jesus detested disease, and was passionate about removing it from peoples' lives.

Professors Michael Gerhardt and William Howell talk about the 1952 Supreme Court case [Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer], in which the Court limited the power of the president to seize property. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Three episodes means we’ve got a show. This week we talk with coffee guzzler and international law expert Tim Meyer. We start with odd coffee habits. Then we ask what international law is. Is it even law? What is law? From there we cover commands and threats, the WTO, the modern framework of international law, and the difference between hard law and soft law. Tim proposes ditching a dinner with Joe. Did you know the London Group doesn’t meet in London? And why would anyone make an agreement they couldn’t hold you to? This show’s links: Tim Meyer’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/timothy-l-meyer) and writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=440142) The World Trade Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization) John Austin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Austin_(legal_philosopher)) (and the command theory) Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14460863599772421355) Cooter, Marks, and Mnoonkin, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law (http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=facpubs), 11 J. L. Stud. 225 (1982) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf) Wikipedia page on the UN Convention on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (includes a link to the text) The Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf) Andrew T. Guzman and Timothy Meyer, International Soft Law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1353444), 2 Journal of Legal Analysis (2011) Master Blaster runs Bartertown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xetonjc3M8) (youtube) and Bust a Deal and Face the Wheel (http://www.hark.com/clips/csnjfrxldc-bust-a-deal-and-face-the-wheel) (sound clip) Jean d’Aspremont, Formalism and the Sources of International Law (http://books.google.com/books?id=cnAnAgAAQBAJ), Oxford Univ. Press (2011) The London Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Suppliers_Group) Goldilocks Globalism (Guzman and Meyer, 2015) Tim’s book suggestions: Robert Keohane, After Hegemony (http://www.amazon.com/After-Hegemony-Cooperation-Political-Princeton/dp/0691122482); Lloyd Gruber, Ruling the World (http://www.amazon.com/Ruling-World-Lloyd-Gruber/dp/0691010412/); Pollack and Shaffer, When Cooperation Fails (http://www.amazon.com/When-Cooperation-Fails-International-Genetically/dp/0199567050); Andrew Guzman, How International Law Works (http://www.amazon.com/How-International-Law-Works-Rational/dp/0195305566); Posner and Sykes, Economic Foundations of International Law (http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Foundations-International-Eric-Posner/dp/0674066995) Special Guest: Tim Meyer.