The Claremont Institute: Recent Episodes
The Claremont Institute
Audio from Claremont Institute events, lectures, and broadcasts, including audio-only versions of 'The American Mind' interview show.
Chris Flannery, Claremont Senior Fellow and contributing editor to the Claremont Review of Books, joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss the importance of teaching western civilization.
Chris Flannery, Claremont Senior Fellow and contributing editor to the Claremont Review of Books, joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to talk about his piece at The American Mind on the Party of 1776, and misunderstanding about the word "justice."
William Voegeli, Senior Editor at the Claremont Review of Books, joins Chicago's Morning Answer to discuss the his essay for the Claremont Review of Books, " A Kinder, Gentler Gulag."
Michael Anton, lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College's Kirby Center and Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, joins Chicago's Morning Answer to discuss the his new essay for the Claremont Review of Books, "Are The Kids Al(T)Right?"
Charles Kesler, Claremont Senior Fellow and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss the just-released Winter Issue of the Claremont Review of Books, including his new essay, "2020 Foresight," and Christopher DeMuth's "Trumpism, Nationalism, And Conservatism."
Dr. Matthew J. Peterson, Vice President of Education at the Claremont Institute, joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss his piece in The American Mind defending Tucker Carlson.
Charles Kesler, Claremont Senior Fellow and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss his new Imprimis piece, "America's Cold Civil War."
In this podcast, Dr. Matthew Peterson, our Vice President of Education, is joined by three of America’s leading thinkers on Congress: Dr. Matthew Spalding, Dr. Michael Uhlmann, and Dr. Joe Postell. “Welcome everyone, to the American Mind podcast, a production of the Claremont Institute. I’m Ryan Williams, president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. This podcast is about ideas, principles, and American politics, usually hosted by yours truly or our vice president of education, Matthew Peterson. Our mission at Claremont has always been the recovery of the American idea—those timeless principles that have made America great since our founding. Visit our website for show notes, essays, editorials, debates, and more at americanmind.org and you can always reach us by e-mailing americanmind@claremont.org. Don’t forget to subscribe to the American Mind on itunes or wherever you get your podcasts, spread the word to your friends and colleagues, and most importantly—thanks for listening.”
–Ryan Williams, President of the Claremont Institute
“I’m Matt Peterson, vice president of Education at the Claremont Institute and Editor of American Mind. Everyone knows that something is wrong with Congress, which is why it has lower approval ratings that either of the other two branches. In fact, as others have pointed out, Congress has a lower approval rating than hemorrhoids, Nickelback, traffic jams, cockroaches, root canals, and colonoscopies. But why, exactly, has Congress ceased to function as the founders intended? And what might be required to restore it back to health? In the following podcast, I explore these questions with three of the top minds on Congress in the nation. Dr. Matthew Spalding and Dr. Michael Uhlmann are Claremont Institute senior fellows with graduate degrees from Claremont University, and Dr. Joe Postell runs the annual panels the Claremont Institute sponsors at the American Political Science Association. In fact, this podcast was recorded with a few drinks in hand at the 2018 APSA Conference, after a panel entitled: ‘What’s the Matter with Congress?’ Enjoy.”
–Matthew Peterson, Vice President of the Claremont Institute
In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Charles Kesler, Claremont Senior Fellow and editor of the Claremont Review of Books (CRB), argues that most of President Trump’s alleged transgressions offend against the etiquette of modern liberal governance, not the Constitution. Dr. Kesler joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss why breaking norms will renew democracy, not ruin it.
Dr. John Eastman, founding director of Claremont's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, analyzes Trump's selection of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to fill Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court.
At the 6:05 minute mark, Dr. Eastman specifically evaluates the nomination in the context of the administrative state.
"One of the major fights in the Supreme Court right now, and my own Supreme Court litigation center has been on the forefront of this fight, is pushing back against unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies that are basically ruling our lives, from morning to night, cradle to grave, without any legal authority.
"These administrative law doctrines that have developed over the last number of decades are finally being called into question. One of the things that stands out about Brett Kavanaugh’s career on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is his willingness to question some of those doctrines as a violation of core constitutional separation of powers principles. That is where a very big fight is going on in the Supreme Court right now, and I think that may well have tilted the scale in his favor on the nomination."
Dr. John Eastman, founding director of Claremont's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests discuss the major cases from the 2017-2018 Supreme Court term in this month's tele-town hall. Dr. Eastman is joined by Professor Anthony T. Caso, director of the Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, which is sponsored by the Claremont Institute’s own Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; and Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network. Cases discussed include Trump, President of U.S. v. Hawaii, the case involving the legal challenge to President Trump’s executive orders restricting immigration from several terrorist hotbed countries; NIFLA v. Becerra, the First Amendment case which involved a California law that compels religious, pro-life entities to disseminate information about low-cost planning services, abortion included, to “ensure access to reproductive health services for all California women, regardless of income;” Janus v. AFSCME, another First Amendment case ruling that public employees could not be forced to pay dues or fees to public sector unions; and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Civil Rights Commission, the case involving the wedding cake designer who refused to make a custom-designed cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony, citing his constitutional rights to free exercise of religion. Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
Charles Kesler, Claremont Senior Fellow and editor of the Claremont Review of Books (CRB), joins the Seth and Chris Show to discuss his new CRB essay, "Thinking About Trump."
In this episode, Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is joined by Ilya Shapiro, 2015 Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, and editor-in chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Up first, they discuss Trump, President of U.S. v. Hawaii. This is the legal challenge to President Trump’s executive orders restricting immigration from several terrorist hotbed countries, finally being heard on the merits by the Supreme Court after more than a year of legal wrangling in the lower courts. The oral argument for this case was held on April 25, the last day of the Court’s oral argument calendar for the term. The two also discuss a couple of other immigration-related recent developments in the news. * Does the president’s use of the National Guard in order to help patrol border violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Do governors have the authority to refuse to allow their states’ national guard to be called into such service by the president?
- Can the current president cancel the DACA program? Three lower courts have now held that he cannot, without first going through the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act. This is despite that the fact that the prior president himself implemented the program without going through the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act. Is the president’s promise to cancel the DACA program illegal, or are the lower court injunctions against him doing so an example of judicial overreach, even lawlessness?
Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
In this episode, Dr. Eastman is joined by David W. Casazza, a 2015 Claremont Institute John Marshall Fellow. Casazza is an associate with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he is a member of the Litigation Department and focuses on appellate and administrative law. Dr. Eastman is also joined by Denise Harle, who serves as legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, where she is a member of the Center for Life.
Up first, they discuss Benisek v. Lamone, a Maryland partisan gerrymandering case before the Supreme Court this term. The case questions whether state officials responsible for Maryland’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan targeted the plaintiffs for vote dilution, because of their past support for Republican candidates in violation of the First Amendment’s retaliation doctrine. This case was argued on March 28, 2018.
Next, they discuss NIFLA v. Becerra, a First Amendment case before the Court this term. The case involves a California law that compels religious, pro-life entities to disseminate information about low-cost planning services—abortion included—to “ensure access to reproductive health services for all California women, regardless of income.” This case was argued on March 20, 2018, by Mike Farris, President of the Alliance Defending Freedom. Harle was a key part of ADF’s litigation team, which also included Dr. Eastman and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence as co-counsel.
Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
Charles Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books and Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, joins Backbone Radio with Matt Dunn. The two discuss Trump's first year in office, the present status of the "Never Trump" movement (a topic Kesler wrote on in his latest CRB Editor's Note, "Among the Never Trumpers"), and hypotheticals on the future of Conservatism.
In this episode, Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, for our March tele-town hall. Dr. Eastman is joined by Ilya Shapiro, who is a 2015 Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, and editor-in chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. The two discuss Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case challenging a Minnesota election law which prohibits voters from wearing political apparel at a polling venue. Under this law, voters who wear such apparel are told to remove these items before they can enter the polling place and vote. If they refuse, election officials take down their names for possible prosecution and penalties. This case was argued on February 28, 2018.
The two also discuss a First Amendment case before the Supreme Court this term, Janus v. American Federation, which questions whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled. The issue before the Court is whether public employee unions may continue to garnish workers’ paychecks to fund the political act of collective bargaining for taxpayer funded wages and benefits. This case was argued on February 26, 2018.
Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
Our distinguished panel looks at how President Trump has approached executive power in important and novel ways, paying special attention to how the President has asserted greater control over the administrative state, curbed the previous Administration’s use of “enforcement discretion” to effectively change law, and used the power of the “bully pulpit” to advance his objectives and inflame his critics. Claremont co-hosted this panel with The Heritage Foundation on February 22, 2018 in Washington, DC.
The panelists:
• John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute • Adam White, Research fellow, Hoover Institution; Director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School • Charles Kesler, Editor, Claremont Review of Books; Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute; Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College • Ryan Williams (moderator), President, Claremont Institute • Arthur Milikh (host), Associate Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation
Are you familiar with modern conservative political philosopher James Burnham? Though Burnham is a lesser known figure than men such as William F. Buckley Jr. and Russell Kirk, he played an important role in shaping the modern conservative movement.
Ryan Williams, President of the Claremont Institute, joins The Seth and Chris Show to discuss Burnham and the history of the conservative movement.
In this episode, Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is joined by J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, founder of the Election Law Center, and formerly an official in the Voting Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Eastman will also be joined by Professor Anthony T. Caso, director of the Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, which is sponsored by the Claremont Institute’s own Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
During this town hall, Eastman and his guests will discuss Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a case which addresses whether Ohio’s list-maintenance process violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The list-maintenance process in question sends a confirmation notice if a voter is inactive for two consecutive years. If the mail returns undelivered and four more years of inactivity pass, the voter is removed from the voting rolls. This case was argued on January 10, 2018.
They also discuss Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro which concerns whether “service advisors” at car dealerships are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements. The broader issue in question is whether unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies can unilaterally alter longstanding interpretations of the law. This case was argued on January 17, 2018.
Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
In this episode, Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is joined by: Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute and former Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow; Dr. David Upham, Director of Legal Students and Associate Professor at the University of Dallas; and Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute.
During this town hall, Eastman and his guests will discuss one of the most important cases being heard by the Supreme Court this term, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was argued on, December 5, 2017. The court must decide whether government can compel a U.S. citizen to participate in speech with which he or she fundamentally disagrees and that violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs.
They also discuss the important case addressing some complicated federalism doctrines, Chris Christie v. NCAA, which was argued on, December 4, 2017.
Dr. Eastman is a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute and the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
Charles Kesler, Mark Lilla, Heather Mac Donald, and Ryan Williams examine the political and moral threat of identity politics and the means necessary to reinstate and protect the motto on which our republic stands: e pluribus unum. Claremont hosted this panel on November 9, 2017 at the Harvard Club in NYC.
The panelists:
- Charles Kesler, Editor, Claremont Review of Books; Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; Professor, Claremont McKenna College
- Mark Lilla, Professor, Columbia University; Author, The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics
- Heather Mac Donald, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Author, The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe
- Ryan Williams, President, The Claremont Institute (moderator)
Angelo Codevilla, Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, joins the Laura Ingraham Radio Show to discuss his latest piece for American Greatness, "Power, Sex, and Politics."
William Voegeli, senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books, joins The Federalist Radio Hour to discuss topics such as the rise of the new radical left, the conservative intellectual movement in the age of Trump, and the impact of human emotion on government.
They discuss free speech and how the new antifa left justifies violence. “Both the left and right are non-absolutists about free speech in particular, and inalienable rights in general,” Voegeli said.
In this episode, Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is joined by Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for New York and a contributing editor of National Review; and J. Christian Adams, General Counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation and member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
Eastman and his guests discuss a slate of immigration cases that were argued at the Supreme Court this month: Jennings v. Rodriquez, which addresses the important constitutional question of whether it is permissible for immigration officials to detain criminal aliens for more than six months while deportation proceedings are underway, or must they be released into the interior of the country; and Sessions v. Dimaya, which addresses whether the statutory language, “crime of violence,” that triggers deportation of aliens, is unconstitutionally vague. Estman also provides an update on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, the case challenging President Trump’s temporary suspension of immigration from six designated middle-eastern countries where terrorist activity is rampant. The case was scheduled to be heard this month, but it was dropped from the Court’s oral argument calendar after President Trump issued a new executive order dealing with the same subject. They also discuss the important case addressing partisan gerrymandering, Gill v. Whitford, which was argued October 3, 2017. Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1996-97.
In the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence's inaugural tele-town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Center, is joined by three of his colleagues to discuss several cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Former Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Dr. Eastman to discuss Heien v. North Carolina and the limits of our Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. Professor Anthony Caso and Dr. Eastman then consider Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk and the government's interference in determining employee compensation. Finally, Jordan Lorence, Senior Counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, joins to discuss Holt v. Hobbs. While this case offers a different angle on religious liberties, it addresses themes similar to those in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.
In this episode, join Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, for our September tele-town hall. Dr. Eastman will be joined by Professor Anthony T. Caso, director of the Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, which is sponsored by the Claremont Institute’s own Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. During this town hall, they will give a brief overview of the upcoming 2017-2018 Supreme Court term. And, will also address a couple of the more controversial issues in the legal news over the past month: President Trump’s pardon of former Mariposa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Attorney General Sessions’ announcement that the President is rescinding President Obama’s illegal DACA program. Aditionally, they will explore the pace of confirmations by the U.S. Senate of executive and judicial officers since President Trump came into office. On September 25, the Supreme Court returns to work with its “long conference,” considering all the petitions filed over the summer asking the Court to review cases. We will learn which cases are “in,” and which are “out,” a few days later. The Court then officially begins its new term the following Monday, October 2. After more than a year of 4-4 split decisions on controversial matters following Justice Scalia’s death, new Justice Neal Gorsuch will be there to potentially break any lingering deadlock, and the Court appears poised to hear a slew of important matters.
Claremont Institute Board Member Robert Curry joins the Dennis Prager Show to discuss his piece "What’s the Matter with Germany?” In the segment, Curry explains the historical context for why Germany is using its position of economic dominance to cause young Muslim men from outside Europe to swarm across Europe’s borders.
Claremont Review of Books editor Dr. Charles Kesler joins Airtalk to discuss what effect Bannon’s removal has on White House policy and Breitbart News.
Claremont Review of Books editor Dr. Charles Kesler joins Airtalk to weigh in on Trump’s press conference. During the interview, Charles contrasts the founders and our First Principles against the actions and beliefs of neo-Nazis, pointing out the latter’s un-American nature.
Claremont Senior Fellow Allen Geulzo joined the Trent England show to discuss his recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "College Is Trade School for the Elite." He weighs in on vocationalism, liberal arts, and how they are still relevant and important to Americans.
Claremont Review of Books Editor Dr. Charles Kesler joined Airtalk to discuss expectations for the new White House chief of staff, plus how the GOP stays on agenda following the health care debacle.
How does one define conservatism in the new age of Trump and "Trumpism?" Ryan Williams, incoming president of the Claremont Institute, weighs in on The Seth and Chris Show.
Claremont Review of Books Editor Dr. Charles Kesler joined The Seth and Chris Show on July 12th to discuss how to think about Russia in the larger context of foreign policy, and today's conservative movement.
Was Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer illegal? On July 12th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined The Larry Elder Show to discuss the controversial meeting from a legal perspective.
On July 5th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined McIntyre In The Morning to discuss Trump impeachment chances from a constitutional perspective.
On June 27th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined McIntyre In The Morning to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling on the Trump administration's travel ban, and more.
In this episode, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence will be joined by three of our own John Marshall Fellows to discuss cases from the 2016-17 Supreme Court term.
To discuss Murr v. Wisconsin, Dr. Eastman is joined by Anastasia Boden, a 2015 John Marshall Fellow. Ms. Boden is an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, working on the Economic Liberty Project where she challenges anti-competitive occupational licensing laws, and laws that restrict the freedom of speech. In this case, the Murr family is challenging a broad reading of the already-erroneous legal precedent established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York in 1978, which made it nearly impossible for property owners to win compensation when state regulations take their property. This case was decided June 23, 2017.
Next, to discuss Matal v. Tam and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, we are joined by Michael Huston, a 2014 John Marshall Fellow, who is an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Huston served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts. Matal 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 addressed whether the the First Amendment protects these types of speech.
And to discuss Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, Dr. John Eastman is joined by Dr. Sohan Dasgupta, a 2016 John Marshall Fellow who is currently clerking for Judge David Faber of the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and who will clerk for Judge Consuelo Callahan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dr. Dasgupta served as executive editor for the Berkeley Journal of International Law. In this case, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied a state grant to resurface a playground at a child learning center in Missouri solely because the center is operated by a church. In 2014 the district court ruled against Trinity Lutheran, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 19, 2017.
On June 25th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined Liberty Watch to discuss recent important Supreme Court cases. Dr. Eastman's segment begins at the 24:28 minute mark.
What is the Constitution's emoluments clause, and what is the argument that President Trump violated it? On June 12th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined The Larry Elder Show to discuss DC and Maryland suing President Trump based on the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and more.
On May 16th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined The Larry Elder Show to discuss Trump's recent immigration executive order, the Comey memo, and sanctuary cities.
Following H. R. McMaster's White House Press Briefing, Claremont Senior Fellow Dr. Charles Kesler joined AirTalk on May 16th to discuss the fallout from Trump's reported sharing of sensitive intelligence with Russian officials. (Skip to the 24:28 mark to begin Dr. Kesler's portion.)
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Dr. Charles Kesler joined the Seth and Chris Show on May 1st to discuss his latest New York Times opinion piece, Donald Trump Is a Real Republican, and That’s a Good Thing.
In this episode Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guest Joseph Tartakovsky, Nevada Deputy Solicitor General and the Claremont Institute's James Wilson Fellow in Constitutional Law, discuss religious discrimination issues within Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer.
This case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 19th. The issue before the Court involves the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denial of a state grant to resurface a playground at a child-learning center in Missouri solely because a church operates the center. The church argued that its exclusion from a state run program, whose purpose is to assist non-profit organizations with obtaining rubber playground surfaces, is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against religious institutions. Meanwhile, the state argued that there is no constitutional violation because the church can still run its learning center, and the state constitution forbids government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation.
Additionally, Dr. Eastman was joined by Professor Anthony T. Caso to take a look at what Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court may mean for our efforts to roll back the administrative state and restore the constitution’s limitations on executive power. Professor Caso is the Director of our Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law.
On April 7th, Claremont Review of Books Senior Editor William Voegeli joined Deutsche Welle's Ben Bathke to discuss his latest CRB piece, entitled "The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis."
After Democrats successfully blocked Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination from advancing in the Senate, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joined "McIntyre in the Morning" to discuss the Republicans' vow to use the nuclear option.
During the Obama administration we watched the government's willingness to enforce its preferences in the lives of citizens increase exponentially in almost every arena. In this podcast Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests will take up two cases arguing against this unconstitutional interference: Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case; and Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., a transgender bathroom case.
John Groen, lead counsel for the Murr family in Murr v. Wisconsin, and General Counsel and Senior Attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation joins us in this town hall. The Murrs challenge a legal precedent instituted in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978), which made it nearly impossible for property owners to win compensation when state regulations take their property. The Center filed a brief supporting the Murrs' argument that regulations that effectively hold private property hostage require just compensation under the Constitution.
On March 6 the Supreme Court vacated and remanded our second case back to the 4th Circuit after President Trump rescinded the guidance that added protections for transgender students to Title IX. Dr. Eastman is joined by Stephanie Taub, Counsel with First Liberty Institute, to discuss Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., and its return to the 4th Circuit. In 2015 a transgender student in Virginia sued the school district for access to the men's bathroom. The 4th Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision granting access, and the School Board appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether the federal statute's reinterpretation by a low-level bureaucrat was entitled to deference, and whether the Department's reinterpretation of Title IX should be given effect. The Center filed a brief on behalf of the National Organization of Marriage in support of the school board.
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.
Dr. John Eastman joined the Mark Levin show on March 2, 2017 to discuss his latest piece from The Claremont Review of Books, entitled "President Trump, Meet the Real President Jackson."
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.
Guests: 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)
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.
Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director of Claremont's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joins The Larry Elder Show to discuss voter fraud and felon voting.
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.
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.
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.
The Claremont Institute's Charles Kesler and National Review's David French debate Trump, Trumpism, and the future of the conservative movement.
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.
Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt delivers the keynote address are the Claremont Institute's 2016 Constitution Day Celebration.
John Eastman delivers the closing remarks at the Claremont Institute's 2016 Constitution Day Celebration.
Dean Reuter, Hans A. von Spakovsky, and Lawrence VanDyke discuss our increasingly politicized executive branch.
John Malcolm, John Shu, Michael Uhlmann, and John Yoo discuss the erosion of the separation of powers.
Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director of Claremont's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joins McIntyre in the Morning to discuss a fascinating First Amendment question posed by a new California law.
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Claremont Review of Books Editor Charles Kesler joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss the postmodern campus, conservatism's post-election future, and much more.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Equal Justice Coalition's Jay Feinberg, and Trent England of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs for a tele-town hall discuss the history and future of the 17th Amendment.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created an elegant system of checks and balances in order to limit the power of the federal government. Key to their design was the division of Congress into two houses: a lower house, elected directly by the people, and an upper house, with its members selected by the state legislatures. But in 1913, the 17th Amendment turned this system on its head by providing for the direct election of senators and disenfranchising the sovereign states. Today, with Congress's approval at record lows and a central government that grows larger by the day, perhaps it is time to ask if this experiment has run its course. Perhaps it is time to consider repealing the 17th Amendment.
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Claremont Review of Books Senior Editor William Voegeli joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss the what Joe McCarthy can teach us about the rise of Trump.
Claremont Institute board member Dr. Robert Curry is joined by historian Victor Davis Hanson for a discussion of Dr. Curry's new book, "Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Power of the American Idea."
Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director of Claremont's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joins Bill Frezza on the RealClear Radio Hour to examine the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests discuss the final opinions in the 2015-16 term.
Dr. Eastman moderates the discussion alongside his fellow Claremont Fellowship faculty member, John Yoo. Professor Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Prior to teaching, he served as a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, general counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. He has authored several books, most recently the edited volume, Liberty's Nemesis: The Overexpansion of the State.
Dr. Eastman and Professor Yoo are joined by three of our distinguished Fellowship alumni. William Haun, a 2013 John Marshall Fellow, is an associate at Hunton & Williams LLP. He will serve as a law clerk to Judge Janice Rogers Brown in the D.C. Circuit for the 2016-17 term. Marcella Burke, a 2014 John Marshall Fellow, is an associate at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. She recently served as a law clerk to Justice Don Willett on the Supreme Court of Texas. And Michael Huston, also a 2014 John Marshall Fellow, is an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Prior to joining the firm, he served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts.
The polls were right, and the pundits were wrong. A Republican presidential field that was hailed as the most talented in a generation has been flummoxed, humbled, and finally beaten by Donald Trump. The Party of Lincoln is now firmly in the hands of a Manhattan billionaire, and conservatives seem hopelessly divided about how to proceed. Some embraced Trump early on and will continue to carry his banner in the general election. Others have made peace with him as the lesser of two evils. And some remain firmly in the #NeverTrump camp, committed to searching for a third option or simply staying home.
Whatever decision individual conservatives make come November, the time has come for the Right to reckon with what has happened. What can conservatives learn from Trump and from this episode? What is at stake for the Right should Trump prevail in November? If conservatives are to succeed in turning the nation back toward the principles of the American Founding, they will need to find answers to these questions and begin charting a path forward.
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Claremont Review of Books Editor Charles Kesler joins The Seth Leibsohn Show to discuss the Trump phenomenon and the future of conservatism.
Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, presents oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests discuss the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and President Obama's executive action unilaterally extending amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.
To discuss Encino Motorcars, L.L.C. v. Navarro, Dr. Eastman is joined by seasoned litigator Jeffrey Harris. They analyze whether the Department of Labor has the authority to write regulations that unilaterally extend the overtime requirements of the FLSA to a new category of employees.
To discuss United States v. Texas, Dr. Eastman is joined by John Miano of the Center for Immigration Studies. In this case, Texas is joined by 25 other states in arguing that the President’s executive action extending amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Though the merits of the case are still being considered in federal district court in Texas, the Court will consider whether Texas has standing to bring the suit against the Department of Homeland Security.
You can read our brief in this case here.
When the first Civil Service Reform Act passed in 1883, “good government” reformers envisioned nonpartisan civil servants fairly administering the federal bureaucracy. From the vantage point of 2016, it is clear this dream has turned into a nightmare. Supposedly nonpartisan administrative agencies have often proven to be anything but. The executive branch increasingly treats agencies like the IRS and the DOJ not as impartial regulators, but as partisan weapons for intimidating political opponents.
This type of abuse raises serious questions about the First Amendment, the power of the administrative state, and the very nature of our government. How can courageous nonprofits fight back against harassment? Will the Courts step in to protect citizens’ right to engage in political activism? How can we resist this kind of administrative tyranny?
Judges must navigate between interpreting the Constitution and statutes, working within existing precedents and applying both bodies of law to particular cases. Striking this balance has policy consequences that render the Supreme Court a political branch in the public's mind. As the heated debate of Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement demonstrates, the Court is no longer seen as the "least dangerous branch."
How should justices address this tension in their decisions and opinions? Can the Court return to a narrower vision of its judicial duty? If not, what judicial philosophy best fits the reality of the Court's role in a self-governing republic?
Claremont's John Eastman joins an expert panel at the American Enterprise Institute to answer these questions and more. (Dr. Eastman's presentation begins at 65:09.)
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests tackle the bureaucracy’s effort to avoid judicial review of its decisions as well as the now-famous case of the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Professor Anthony T. Caso—who authored the Center’s amicus brief in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes—joins Dr. Eastman to discuss this latest instance of executive overreach in which the executive attempts to determine when its decisions are subject to judicial review.
Next Ilya Shapiro joins Dr. Eastman for our conversation on the seven cases consolidated under Zubik v. Burwell. The Court is asked to decide whether the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring religious nonprofits to provide contraception and abortifacients in violation of their beliefs. Our brief focuses on whether HHS has the legislative authority to institute the contraception mandate. Mr. Shapiro is the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute,editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, and a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow.
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow William Voegeli joins The Dennis Prager Show to discuss his PragerU video on modern liberalism's insatiable appetite for big government.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, takes a look at the oral arguments from Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
House Bill 2 is the Texas law that captured the nation's attention when state legislator Wendy Davis and her pink sneakers took to the Texas Senate floor for an 11-hour filibuster. The measure was signed into law and now requires that a physician performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and sets the health and safety standards for abortion clinics at the same level as those for an ambulatory surgical center. Dr. Eastman is joined by Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law and Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois College of Law.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, takes a look at the oral arguments from two of the Supreme Court's recent cases—Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association and Sturgeon v. Frost.
In Friedrichs, the Court considers whether it is a First Amendment violation to require public employees such as teachers to contribute to their union. The petitioner in Sturgeon challenges the authority of the National Park Service to place regulations on privately owned land that is located within the boundaries of the National Park System.
Dr. Eastman is joined by Carrie Severino, chief counsel & policy director at Judicial Crisis Network and Kimberly S. Hermann, senior counsel at Southeastern Legal Foundation.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, takes a look at the oral arguments from two of the term’s most important cases—Fisher v. University of Texas and Evenwel v. Abbott.
In Fisher, the Court considers whether affirmative action in higher education can be maintained in its current form, or if it should finally be abandoned. The petitioners in Evenwel challenge the way most states calculate population when drawing political districts.
Dr. Eastman is joined by Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Michael Anton joins The Dennis Prager Show to discuss his Claremont Review of Books article on why the richest people in the world are Democrats.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, discusses two cases in the Supreme Court's October sitting. In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court is asked to finally end racial preferences in education. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electrical Power Supply Association, and Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore again give the Court a chance to rein in the powers of the unconstitutional administrative state.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, discusses the Supreme Court's upcoming term and several of the most important cases they will hear. In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court is asked to finally end racial preferences in education. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association presents the Court a chance to end mandatory union dues, and Evenwel v. Abbott could change the way we think about "one-man-one-vote".
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, discusses the Supreme Court's groundbreaking decisions in King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges. These cases illustrate the Roberts Court's troubling willingness to decide political questions properly left to the people.
In this episode of The American Mind, Charles Kesler interviews the Claremont Institute's 2015 Salvatori Prize winner, acclaimed columnist Charles Krauthammer. In a wide-ranging conversation, they discuss Krauthammer's intellectual journey from left to right, the follies of Freudianism, and the Iraq War.
For our April town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman is joined Professor Anthony Caso, Ilya Shapiro, and Lynne Marie Kohm. Dr. Eastman and his guests discuss two of the most hot-button cases before the Court: Horne v. USDA and Obergefell v. Hodges. These cases touch on some of our most fundamental liberties: the right of families to make a living free of federal interference and the right of states to retain the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
For our March town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman is joined by the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro and the Texas Public Policy Foundation's John Davidson to discuss the policy considerations and constitutional questions raised by King v. Burwell. The latest legal challenge to Obamacare to make it to the Supreme Court, King raises the question of whether the IRS may extend tax-credit subsidies to individuals who purchase insurance coverage through the federal exchanges, despite text in the law indicating that such subsidies are not authorized.
Dr. Eastman is then joined by C.D. Michel to discuss Henderson v. United States. The case presents an interesting twist on Second Amendment rights. What rights does a convicted felon retain to firearms he legally purchased prior to his conviction?
In this town hall, the Claremont Institute's Dr. John C. Eastman is joined by Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, to sort out the issue of disparate-impact claims in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. What is disparate impact? Is it cognizable under the Fair Housing Act? What standards and burdens of proof should apply? Dr. Eastman and Gene C. Schaerr then discuss Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case in which the Court considers the right of a church to place temporary signs promoting services and giving directions to service locations in public places. Mr. Schaerr authored the amicus brief for the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists in this case and will offer his analysis of the case and the Court's deliberations in oral arguments. Mr. Schaerr most recently served as Utah's Special Assistant Attorney General, and before that was a partner and Chair of Appellate & Critical Motions Practice at Winston & Strawn.
In this episode of The American Mind, Charles Kesler sits down with renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama to explore Fukuyama's book, Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. In their wide-ranging conversation, Kesler and Fukuyama discuss the nature of the modern state, the prospects for democracy in the Muslim world, and the relative merits of America's political system.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is joined by John Yoo, the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and Hans von Spakovsky, Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation.
Texas and Wisconsin are involved in very different fights to preserve our constitutional system. In Texas v. United States, Texas is joined by 25 other states fighting against the recent executive action to grant deferred deportation status to 4 million illegal immigrants. In Frank v. Walker, Wisconsin recently won the right to enforce its 2012 law requiring photo ID to vote. Dr. Eastman and his guests discuss the legal and political implications of these states' fights to restore the rule of law.
In this episode of The American Mind, Charles Kesler sits down with William Voegeli, Senior Editor at the Claremont Review of Books and author of The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion. Beginning their conversation with a discussion of Voegeli's new book, the two cover the a wide range of topics, from the evolution of modern liberalism to the ins-and-outs of "Liberal B.S."
On June 19, 2014, renowned legal scholar and former Bush Administration official John Yoo addressed supporters of the Claremont Institute at the Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills. He discussed the Constitution's vision of presidential powers and illustrated how the Obama Administration has turned the framers' design on its head.
In this episode of The American Mind, host Charles Kesler and guest Christopher DeMuth discuss the past, present, and future of the administrative state. DeMuth has a long history of working with and against administrative bureaucracies, from helping to create the EPA with the Nixon administration to serving as Reagan's "De-Regulation Czar. He explains the growth of these bureaucracies and offers practical advice for how Congress and the Courts might rein them in.
In our recent tele-town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is first joined by Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business, and Anthony Caso, Director of the Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, to discuss two cases recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that address the power and authority of the federal bureaucracy.
At the core of each of these cases we debate what power is granted by the people to the entities involved and the limits of that power. In the first case, Dept. of Transportation v. Assn. of American Railroads, our three experts focus on Congress’ ability to delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to other entities inside and outside the government. In Perez, Sec. of Labor v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., they discuss the limits to the bureaucracy’s power to alter agency regulations without giving public notice or allowing for public comment.
Next, Dr. Eastman is joined by Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent consideration of Elonis v. United States, in which the Court considers the limits of freedom of speech.
The First Amendment provides a very broad freedom of speech, but for generations we have recognized that the speech is not unlimited when it turns threatening or dangerous. In our age of social media, more and more communication takes place online, and in this case an ex-husband posted about his ex-wife on Facebook. She felt threatened; he claimed he was sharing his latest rap lyrics. Should the test of a “threat” turn on the speaker’s intent to threaten, or how it was received by the listener?
In our November tele-townhall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, discusses President Obama's executive actions on immigration within the context of the constitutional powers and limitations of the Executive. In his conversation with members of the audience, Dr. Eastman addresses the immediate policy implications, as well as the dangers to our constitutional structure created by these executive actions.
In this tele-town hall, the Claremont Institute's Dr. Eastman discusses the opinion by Judge Jeffrey Sutton on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the larger circuit-split on the gay marriage cases. While the policy questions and implications are contentious and important, Dr. Eastman focuses on the constitutional question: what right is at stake, if any, and how does it fit into our constitutional order? What does constitutional adjudication mean in a regime of limited government founded on the natural law and natural rights of the Declaration of Independence? Even when discussing the details of cases and precedent, we must always remind ourselves of, and have recourse to, first principles.
In this episode of The American Mind, Yuval Levin and Charles Kesler discuss the past and future of conservatism from Edmund Burke to the so-called "Reform Conservatives". The conversation is loosely based around Levin's new book The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right.