Federalist Society Faculty Division Podcasts

Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America? tells the story of the six-year courtroom battle that culminated in the Supreme Court�s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidating a law banning handgun possession in Washington, DC. In the book, author Adam Winkler gives a historical overview of the battle between gun rights and gun control advocates, and brings to light what he argues are the often misunderstood legal and historical issues central to history of guns in America. -- Winkler, a Professor at the UCLA School of Law, is joined by Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law, to discuss the book.

During the past decade, courts have struggled to reconcile anti-discrimination statutes with claims by private organizations to First Amendment protection for decisions regarding their missions and membership. Can the Boy Scouts expel a gay Scoutmaster? (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) Can a state law school deny official recognition to a religious club that requires members to affirm certain beliefs regarding homosexuality? (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez) In resolving these questions courts have frequently invoked the freedom of "expressive association," a phrase that appears nowhere in the text of the First Amendment but has been a part of modern judicial doctrine. -- In Liberty’s Refuge, Professor Inazu argues that this "expressive association" mode of analysis is at least in part responsible for what he argues is inadequate protection for associational autonomy--and that a return to the more textually and historically grounded "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is necessary to recapture the benefits of a meaningful pluralism. The Constitution contemplated forcefully dissenting political and expressive groups that would serve as a check on majority rule’s tendency to turn into a force for stifling nonconformity. To maintain an environment in which these groups will flourish, Inazu contends, our First Amendment jurisprudence must recover a more robust conception of associational autonomy grounded in a better understanding of the centrality and breadth of the assembly right. -- John Inazu, a professor at Washington University Law School, is joined by critical commenter Michael McConnell, the Richard & Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, to discuss the book.

During the past decade, courts have struggled to reconcile anti-discrimination statutes with claims by private organizations to First Amendment protection for decisions regarding their missions and membership. Can the Boy Scouts expel a gay Scoutmaster? (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) Can a state law school deny official recognition to a religious club that requires members to affirm certain beliefs regarding homosexuality? (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez) In resolving these questions courts have frequently invoked the freedom of "expressive association," a phrase that appears nowhere in the text of the First Amendment but has been a part of modern judicial doctrine. -- In Liberty�s Refuge, Professor Inazu argues that this "expressive association" mode of analysis is at least in part responsible for what he argues is inadequate protection for associational autonomy--and that a return to the more textually and historically grounded "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is necessary to recapture the benefits of a meaningful pluralism. The Constitution contemplated forcefully dissenting political and expressive groups that would serve as a check on majority rule�s tendency to turn into a force for stifling nonconformity. To maintain an environment in which these groups will flourish, Inazu contends, our First Amendment jurisprudence must recover a more robust conception of associational autonomy grounded in a better understanding of the centrality and breadth of the assembly right. -- John Inazu, a professor at Washington University Law School, is joined by critical commenter Michael McConnell, the Richard & Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, to discuss the book.

Written by Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt, Constitutional Cliffhangers envisions six constitutional controversies that could arise in selecting, replacing, and punishing a U.S. president. None of Kalt’s scenarios, such as the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, a president pardoning himself, or a two-term president attempting to stay in power, have actually occurred, though some have come close. In the book Kalt provides a legal guide to navigating these situations, should they ever occur, and in the process offers insight into pertinent structural and procedural provisions in the Constitution.? Brian Kalt is joined by critical commenter Seth Barrett Tillman, a Lecturer in the Department of Law at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, to discuss the book.

Written by Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt, Constitutional Cliffhangers envisions six constitutional controversies that could arise in selecting, replacing, and punishing a U.S. president. None of Kalt�s scenarios, such as the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, a president pardoning himself, or a two-term president attempting to stay in power, have actually occurred, though some have come close. In the book Kalt provides a legal guide to navigating these situations, should they ever occur, and in the process offers insight into pertinent structural and procedural provisions in the Constitution.? Brian Kalt is joined by critical commenter Seth Barrett Tillman, a Lecturer in the Department of Law at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, to discuss the book.

The Machinery of Criminal Justice discusses the shift in American criminal law from being a system run primarily by laymen to a system in which lawyers are the primary actors. Author Stephanos Bibas argues that this shift has increased the speed and efficiency of our criminal justice system, but that softer values, such as reforming defendants and healing relationships, have been lost with the prioritization of efficiency. Bibas proposes a variety of ways to involve victims, defendants, and the public in the criminal justice process again, including requiring convicts to work or serve in the military and giving more power to sentencing juries over prosecutors. His remarks suggest that, although these mechanisms may be more expensive, they may better serve the interests of criminal procedure by facilitating the denouncement of crime, the vindication of victims, and the reformation of criminals. -- Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, is joined by critical commenter Andrew Taslitz, a professor at Howard University School of Law, to discuss the book.

The Machinery of Criminal Justice discusses the shift in American criminal law from being a system run primarily by laymen to a system in which lawyers are the primary actors. Author Stephanos Bibas argues that this shift has increased the speed and efficiency of our criminal justice system, but that softer values, such as reforming defendants and healing relationships, have been lost with the prioritization of efficiency. Bibas proposes a variety of ways to involve victims, defendants, and the public in the criminal justice process again, including requiring convicts to work or serve in the military and giving more power to sentencing juries over prosecutors. His remarks suggest that, although these mechanisms may be more expensive, they may better serve the interests of criminal procedure by facilitating the denouncement of crime, the vindication of victims, and the reformation of criminals. -- Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, is joined by critical commenter Andrew Taslitz, a professor at Howard University School of Law, to discuss the book.

Taming Globalization discusses the challenge to American constitutional law that arises out of our increasingly global society. The creation of dozens of international institutions, from the International Court of Justice to border commissions to the World Trade Organization, has given rise to a legal network that poses a challenge for American constitutional law. In response to this challenge, Julian Ku and John Yoo propose that domestic actors make use of "mediating devices" such as non-self-execution of treaties, recognition of the President’s authority to interpret international law, and a reliance on state implementation of international law and agreements. These devices, the authors argue, will help us resolve the legal challenges of globalization in a way that minimizes both constitutional and international difficulties. -- Julian Ku, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law, is joined by critical commenter Martin Flaherty, the Leitner Family Professor of Law and Co-Founding Director of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School, to discuss the book.

Taming Globalization discusses the challenge to American constitutional law that arises out of our increasingly global society. The creation of dozens of international institutions, from the International Court of Justice to border commissions to the World Trade Organization, has given rise to a legal network that poses a challenge for American constitutional law. In response to this challenge, Julian Ku and John Yoo propose that domestic actors make use of "mediating devices" such as non-self-execution of treaties, recognition of the President�s authority to interpret international law, and a reliance on state implementation of international law and agreements. These devices, the authors argue, will help us resolve the legal challenges of globalization in a way that minimizes both constitutional and international difficulties. -- Julian Ku, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law, is joined by critical commenter Martin Flaherty, the Leitner Family Professor of Law and Co-Founding Director of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School, to discuss the book.

This Federalist Society Faculty Book Podcast features Professor Scott Gerber’s new book, A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary, 1606-1787. -- A Distinct Judicial Power analyzes the origins of judicial independence in the United States. The book sets forth both the political theory behind and the historical progression of independent judicial power in the United States during the colonial period. It concludes with an examination of how this mixture of theory and experience coalesced to produce Article III of the U.S. Constitution and a power of judicial review committed to the protection of individual rights. -- Professor Scott Gerber, a professor at Ohio Northern University College of Law, is joined by critical commenter Jim Pfander, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, to discuss the book.

This Federalist Society Faculty Book Podcast features Professor Scott Gerber�s new book, A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary, 1606-1787. -- A Distinct Judicial Power analyzes the origins of judicial independence in the United States. The book sets forth both the political theory behind and the historical progression of independent judicial power in the United States during the colonial period. It concludes with an examination of how this mixture of theory and experience coalesced to produce Article III of the U.S. Constitution and a power of judicial review committed to the protection of individual rights. -- Professor Scott Gerber, a professor at Ohio Northern University College of Law, is joined by critical commenter Jim Pfander, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, to discuss the book.

This Federalist Society Faculty Book Podcast features Professor Elizabeth Price Foley’s new book, The Tea Party: Three Principles. -- As Publisher Cambridge University Press states: "In The Tea Party: Three Principles, constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley takes on the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement, asserting that it has been distorted in a way that prevents meaningful political dialogue and may even be dangerous for America's future. Foley sees the Tea Party as a movement of principles over politics. She identifies three "core principles" of American constitutional law that bind the decentralized, wide-ranging movement: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. These three principles, Foley explains, both define the Tea Party movement and predict its effect on the American political landscape. Foley explains the three principles' significance to the American founding and constitutional structure. She then connects the principles to current issues as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism." -- Professor Foley, a Professor of Law at Florida International University School of Law, is joined by critical commenter Jared Goldstein, a Professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, to discuss the book.

This Federalist Society Faculty Book Podcast features Professor Elizabeth Price Foley�s new book, The Tea Party: Three Principles. -- As Publisher Cambridge University Press states: "In The Tea Party: Three Principles, constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley takes on the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement, asserting that it has been distorted in a way that prevents meaningful political dialogue and may even be dangerous for America's future. Foley sees the Tea Party as a movement of principles over politics. She identifies three "core principles" of American constitutional law that bind the decentralized, wide-ranging movement: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. These three principles, Foley explains, both define the Tea Party movement and predict its effect on the American political landscape. Foley explains the three principles' significance to the American founding and constitutional structure. She then connects the principles to current issues as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism." -- Professor Foley, a Professor of Law at Florida International University School of Law, is joined by critical commenter Jared Goldstein, a Professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, to discuss the book.