Author and Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, William Voegeli joined the Sons of Lincoln to discuss his books: Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State (Encounter Books, 2010); and The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion (Broadside Books, 2014).Voegeli also discussed the growing entitlement state, President Trump's first few weeks in office, the liberal mind, and more!
In this podcast Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guest, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, discuss the issues surrounding the Constitutional rights of non-citizens who are located outside of the United States. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hernández v. Mesa on February 21, and President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration continues to be a hot topic of discussion. We tackle the questions at issue in both of these cases in this town hall.
In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court blurred the line that determines when Constitutional protections apply to an individual who is not physically located within the borders of the United States. The Court determined that Constitutional protections extend to individuals based on “objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.” In Hernández v. Mesa, three teenage boys were found in the concrete culvert separating El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico by U.S. Border Agent Jesus Mesa. He caught one of the boys while the other two ran for the Mexican side of the culvert. While standing on U.S. soil, Agent Mesa shot Hernández, who was on Mexican soil. The Court is asked to decide whether they want the courts below to apply a formal or a functional analysis to cases asking what Constitutional protections individuals like Hernández enjoy.
The national conversation regarding President Trump’s executive order (EO) suspending entry into the U.S. from seven countries with ties to terrorism raises similar questions. On January 27, the President issued his order, and on February 3, Judge James Robart issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order to halt its implementation. The Ninth Circuit allowed the temporary restraining order to stand. The case now has three paths: appeal to the Supreme Court, reconsideration by the full Ninth Circuit, or back to Judge Robart to consider the merits of the case.
Charles Kesler, Senior Fellow at The Claremont Institute and Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, on President Trump's Inauguration.
In this podcast Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests discuss a set of cases that test the boundaries of freedom of speech in commerce as well as two cases that consider whether those harmed by government actors should be allowed to seek damages from the individul officers who violated their rights.
Dr. Eastman is joined by Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studeis and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, to discuss the boundaries of freedom of speech. Lee v. Tam involves the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's denial of the trademark application of the Asian rock music group, "The Slants," because their name was found to be disparaging. In Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, merchants were forbidden to truthfully notify customers that use of a debit or credit card would result in a "surcharge." The Court must decide if the First Amendment protects these types of speech.
To discuss Ziglar v. Abbasi and Lewis v. Clarke, Dr. Eastman is joined by Richard Samp, Chief Counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation. Both cases present a claim against government officials who are sued as individuals for harming a person in the course of their job. In Ziglar, the plaintiffs claim individuals within the Bush Administation violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by detaining them as potential terrorists in the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks. In Lewis, plaintiffs challenge whether an Indian tribe's sovereign immunity protects a tribal employee from personal liability for damages when sued for committing a tort during the course of his tribal employment.
In this podcast Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests discuss the newest Voting Rights Act cases before the Supreme Court and debate if and when racial gerrymandering is permissible. They also take up a case addressing when the government must provide bond hearings to detained illegal aliens.
To discuss Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections and McCrory v. Harris, Dr. Eastman is joined by seasoned litigator Michael Lieberman of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. They explore the predicament in which state legislatures find themselves, sandwiched between the rock of precedent and the hard place created by the lower court's ruling.
To discuss Jennings v. Rodriguez, Dr. Eastman is joined by Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law. In Jennings, the Court is asked to decide whether all illegal aliens must be afforded a bond hearing that may result in the their release on bond into the United States, if they are detained for six months or more.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is joined by John Elwood to discuss the limits of the president’s appointment authority and the impact of the 2016 election of the future of the judiciary. Mr. Elwood is a partner at Vinson & Elkins, specializing in appellate litigation and administrative law. He also teaches the University of Virginia School of Law’s Supreme Court litigation clinic.
Dr. Eastman and his guest first examine National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, which asks the Court to determine when the president may appoint an individual to an executive branch position in an acting capacity.
They also discuss the results of the 2016 election. During the campaign, Donald Trump put forward a list of originalist judges he would consider appointing to the bench. With Trump capturing the presidency and Republicans holding the Senate, the election promises to have a major impact on the courts.
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Claremont Review of Books Editor Charles Kesler speaks about the history and principles of the GOP as part of Hillsdale College's Center for Constructive Alternatives lecture series on the American party system. This recording has been made available courtesy of Hillsdale College.