March 21, 2017
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Dr. John Eastman joined Gurvey's Law to discuss court challenges to President Trump's recent executive order on immigration, and whether or not they are politically-motivated.
March 6, 2017
President Trump's address before Congress conveyed a very different tone than his inaugural or campaign speeches.
Instead of focusing on what he sees as the country's disastrous condition, he touted improvements he says are coming. Now the question is whether Congress will agree with his plans. Right now, both sides are meeting on healthcare reform.
Charles Kesler, Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books
Caroline Heldman, associate professor of politics at Occidental College and co-author of ‘Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House?’ (Lynne Rienner Pub, 2007)
March 6, 2017
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!
March 2, 2017
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.
January 23, 2017
Charles Kesler, Senior Fellow at The Claremont Institute and Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, on President Trump's Inauguration.
January 20, 2017
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.
January 4, 2017
Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director of Claremont's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joins The Larry Elder Show to discuss voter fraud and felon voting.
December 13, 2016
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.
November 18, 2016
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Claremont Review of Books Editor Charles Kesler discusses the present and future of American statesmanship in light of the 2016 election.