17 Burst results for "James Wilson Institute"

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

05:17 min | 1 year ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"So a Congress with simple legislation, not constitutional amendment cannot say you can't review this piece of legislation for whether it comports with article one section eight, the enumeration of federal powers or a can't say you cannot review this legislation for whether it violates the First Amendment it just can't do that the Supreme Court's GonNa Strike that down. So you know for certain technical. Things you know it can say, yeah over the the The tax anti injunction act you can't challenge attack until it's been assessed are enforced. That's perfectly fine. That's a rule of standing. That's a rule of win claim cruise when when a when a statutory claim accrues, that's perfectly fine. So I don't know what kind of procedural issues they would put in that way to limit judicial review but again, they can't they simply can't strip constitutional claims. So. Were coming to the end here and we'll just we wanted we wanted to make sure for the record that you. Discussed kind of the the reforms that you had the greatest chance of actually becoming law were becoming right a new norm where new practice within the judiciary committee you are Senate rule. So in fact, what do you think you know has the greatest chance of. Becoming, enacted work or or actually what reforms on could become. A part of law in the near future. Well things that don't require a constitutional amendment so. you know most of what we've talked about not the term limits but expanding the court or Changing Senate rules about how hearings work those things are all possible but it but it comes down to incentives. So and it comes down to our. So are Democrats going to if if Democrats take the Senate are they going to want to spend the political capital to expand the Supreme Court probably not right away I mean it's unclear what Joe Biden's mandate in that scenario would be other than not being Donald Trump which he'll have fulfilled on On. Inauguration. Day, conversely, if Donald trump is reelected or the Republicans keep the Senate then They certainly don't have any incentive to to change any of this. If if Joe Biden is President and Republicans control the Senate. They don't need the filibuster. They have the majority in the Senate, and so they have the numbers.

Senate Supreme Court Donald Trump Joe Biden Congress President
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

02:56 min | 1 year ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Really not an examination of the grounds, the principles that that were trying to conserve here. Of course had James Wilson Institute we're focused on the law but more broadly the indictment of a conservatism that doesn't actually a have a coherent account of the American founding and then be if it even seeks to exist preserve the American founding or just seeks to preserve tradition writ large. I think that. That you Anne Hadley. arcus make an invaluable contribution in your critique. Of what I would call conservative legal positive as. Yeah. Yeah. That's all it seems to me to be. Because they don't refer to the fundamental principles. That law is the rule of reason. and. It's not a just a procedure. and when there is a conflict in the law, it is reason that rules. Now, what do we mean by reason, we mean the laws of nature and nature's God which the country is founded. And if you don't have reference. To that primary foundational source. You will get lost just the way gorsuch got so lost. Its it it it is unhinged. In the book I I talk about Hakim's influence a particularly. As manifested in Martin Luther in. The parts of Germany that became Lutheran. That they were the grounds or the areas in which legal positive ISM was developed. and. It's hardly string it was a logical development. that. The idea of a volunteers God would eventuate in legal positive Azam. And that law should be seen as simply the product of the will. And it doesn't mean it doesn't matter whether it's the will of one or the will of many. That's what lobby comes. Instead of the rule of reason, it's the role of will. And unfortunately. It both sides in the supreme, court cases seemed to be afflicted with this. Mistaken view. lost. laws the rule of reason. Yeah I think I think that's that's that's right. So Deneen and Handy.

James Wilson Institute Martin Luther Deneen Hakim Anne Hadley. Germany
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

04:34 min | 1 year ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"And. The answer unanimously was the ladder. God does not directly appoint rollers. He invests sovereignty and the people who then convey that authority to apprentice or to a king on condition. That the Prince or ruler. Observes, the covenant. That is the condition of the people having conveyed its authority to him. there. Therefore. Set again and again in the Middle Ages if the king becomes a tyrant. The people have a right to revolution and to replace him. It's all there. Also you mentioned those. One flex relation of the medieval roots of a lot of the. Ideas that we see in the founding. Nonetheless, though it seems somewhat new to look at it this way so a person may be casually knowledgeable on the founding would probably not related. or The I thought wouldn't beats related with acquaintance or Hooker Suarez Abella mean like you do in your book Why not look you know more to the conventional sources like lock or Cooker Blackstone for inspiration. Or like white why do people? Why? How have those who disgusted founding so often? Just missed this kind of medieval. Inspiration or Petrie dish in leading to it. Well. That's simply because they don't follow the lineage of the ideas are back to their origin. How where did, where did lock get his material? You know I mean lock will as you know the person whom walk. Quoted most often was Richard Hooker. Richard Hooker get his ideas. hookers not shy about. His sources in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. You know I'm not saying that. We can discuss later what what's different in Locke because Locke has not Aristoteles issue. No. But. The in the American founding itself. The quote Omnibus Tonga's principle is quoted. As you would know at the James. Wilson Institute, James Wilson quotes it in his lectures on law. Absolutely, he finds the Medieval source and also you know that Richard Hooker. Is a hero to James Wilson and he he loves the thinking. Of Richard Hooker. And What I think. It's the letter from the farmer in Pennsylvania. He quotes Code Domino's tangent. So the bright the tax as no taxation without representation didn't come out of nowhere. It certainly didn't come. It wasn't locks idea. It's an ancient idea. and. They've the founding generation was was calling from appealing to their ancient rights well. How ancient were there? I tried to answer that and also as you know. I think this is necessary. particularly. In consideration of. Those critics who said that the founding was an exclusively enlightenment product. and which leaves the founding vulnerable to the charges from Handy Deneen. Because well, there's a problem they take the enlightenment as a homogeneous thing. And therefore, they take it at the most radical expression. Of The enlightenment and how they Undermine the legitimacy of the American founding. What I try to show in my book is all these ideas. Predate the enlightenment. And the the enlightenment expression of them..

Richard Hooker James Wilson Hooker Suarez Abella Handy Deneen Wilson Institute Cooker Blackstone Locke Aristotle Thomas Aquinas Pennsylvania
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

05:22 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Hello and welcome to the James Wilson podcast I'm your host Garrett's networker. Joining us today is Abigail Schreier She is the author of a new book. Irreversible damage, the transgender cray seducing our daughters from publishing. Abigail is a trained lawyer and frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal. She holds an B from Columbia. She received your Kellet Fellowship to study at Oxford where she took a beef ill. She earned her J. D from Yale Law and then served as a law clerk to judge judith, Rogers on the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. She lives in southern California with her husband and their children. Also with us on today's podcast will be Spencer. Reeves one of our interns at the James Wilson Institute. Spencer, why don't you get US started? Thanks so much Garrett, and thank you Abigail for taking the time to be here with us today. Garrett and I've already had the opportunity to read your wonderful book, but for our audience who haven't had the chance to read it. Would you mind taking a few minutes? Tell them what your book is about. Sure. So in the last decade, the incidence of gender, dis, Fauria or extreme discomfort in one's biological sex has exploded across the West including the United. States and there are three things that make us think that this is not normal or typical gender dysphoric, first of all the onset has totally shifted from preschool age boys to suddenly teenage girls with no history of gender, dis, Fauria and the sex ratio. Ratio has flipped from young boys to all of a sudden teenage girls. They are the predominant demographic, and the prevalence has gone up by thousands of for percent, so my book is an exploration of a medical mystery why all of a sudden are is the dominant demographic of for Gender Dis of suffering in their biological sex, identifying as transgender asking for hormones and surgeries. Why is it teenage girls with? No history of gender dysphoric it all. Advocate this Garrett one of the major distinctions. Your book.

Garrett Abigail Schreier Spencer James Wilson Abigail James Wilson Institute Wall Street Journal US Court of Appeals Fauria Yale Law Rogers law clerk Columbia Reeves Oxford California DC judith J. D
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

07:37 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"And and even with the self proclaimed principles of five, even while he was on moderate man of the lightning. Or right and I think one of the great strengths of is is his as her. Russian. And illustrating and body is constant connection between anti capitalism and Anti Semitism, an is an incontrovertibly proof, and there's a wonderful epigrams Bram at the beginning of the war by. The Indian Fatigue Babil and streaming wise on a rental sandwiches, Robert whispered pointing out at a great political religions of modern times, Nazism Communism Islam. Temple, for sure values, liberal democracy capitalism in a toxic in deminex mix. I think that's true. I'm going to add one controversial question Juliano's analysis. This stick it's part of the record. It is also true. That many a secular Jewish intellectuals who turned against the fate, their fathers. Turn to Messianic ideology. As an alternative. To Judy is. And how you know if you look at Belco regime in nineteen, seventeen or land, you had many again. Self loathing Jews. Of contempt for the faith of their fathers, but somehow I think they quite mistakenly saw. Communism or kind of messy annex socialism as of fulfillment of the ethical promises duties. Now, all of those regimes as Juliana poet champ happened very quickly these new. Stir your the triumphs on a poker Romania IUS Lonski in. In Czechoslovakia, the doctors spot of the Soviet all of those regimes very quickly turned against the Jews, but it was but it's an incident question why those who rejected Jewish face a religion. Some perfectly content with a liberal moderation and A defensive of Freud for example was a man of decent politics. You know by but why? Some of them turned a political fanaticism in place of Judaism. It's a it's a question. I like to hear Ju to. Answer to it. Structure Analysis on the connection factual connection between Anti Semitism. Anti Topos of I sleep is. Absolutely, correct Juliana analyses of. I'm going to quote Heller. Russell French, Fowler you. them power or analysis of Utopian? Power is simply accurate. It is illustrated with the best vocations with the most judicious use of the appropriate facts. Time back to my students who think communism is a few multiplied. By the way Juliana. Has. Funds from Latin. who was a hater of the first order? Many quote Lenin a little bit. I said God's. Founded Robert Tucker's. Women have followed follozing. One of the most revealing tax, but never wrote was called. HOW ORGANIZED COMPETITION! Erode in January nineteen eighteen a few months after the Bolshevik Coil. It wasn't cool, not a revolution as Juliana and I know it. Revolution suggests that was a popular mass movement. Let they didn't go read. All the non-communist in the constituent assembly on January fifteen eighty. But run. It says toward south. It's ironic. How do we organize the competition well first of all? Old People are Democratic Socialist. Independent, lecturing Mr. Leaving Christians and Jews who merchants abortion watt increase. Our deal now. They are chancer resources they are. Horrible Olson's Bay all of the rhetoric of demonization. H. Goes through and through this essence. And so the plea conviction. Of Totalitarian genocide is. A comprehensive. Dehumanisation of real or imagined enemies of people, listening to this redder, no mercy to these enemies of the people enemies of socialism, the enemies of the talk boilers warheads. With the rich and hangers on the Orejuela intellectuals war on the roads, the idlers and the hooligans, and that's moderate rhetoric, can you? Now near the end of the peace. Levin says That we need. Experiments in. With enemies of the P.. A thousand forms. Thousands of practical forms of birds of a county in controlling the rich robes, the idlers and the enemy to the people, so he says you why you capital issue to talk about. ITCHY competition I'll give you variety. He says that's GonNa be it's GonNa be the guarantee of talented hugh. And Competition in achieving the sting bow, common eight, and these words are Shimmer. To cleanse some. Of Russia of all armful insects of Crook Fleas and bedbugs, the rich and so on and so. And he goes on instead as in some places will send them to camps, and others will have the clean toilets at another one. One at of every checks will be shot. Outside Slam Lennon at the beginning of the revolution. Where the vast majority of the Russian nation Russian people's for the peasantry of the intellectuals, the Church, or not on board with the Bolshevik product. They were all demonize. And the single tried checked became. Urging rush up of all harmful insects. Landon January nine, thousand, nine hundred, and you can find by the way. I, don't know Juliana Juliana. You mentioned your she. Jack or any of those oceanliner has to defend communists today, but. She. Has Written a defensive land. He wrote a book called in defense of loss causes aloft. Horses include robespierre ninety three landon in seventeen. heidegger thirty. Three somehow hide it ver. It was taken in by Nazism, but that's okay. Because Nazism is monstrous isn't was was to anti Joie at anti-capitalist. And Mount, ship, Tong by the French, Stalinist, acclaimed intellectual as written a critical commentaries on mouse discourses from the Cultural Revolution. Treats them white..

Juliana Juliana Robert Tucker Juliano Bram Czechoslovakia Romania IUS Lonski Bolshevik Coil Judy Freud Ju Heller Lenin Russia Orejuela Landon Jack Mr. Leaving Olson Russell French Levin
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

01:43 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"And even I know it sounds silly, but like you type section to thirty into twitter, you might find other voices who are who are giving some really unique insight What one author I really love on this is Charles Cook. He's done at national review. He's done a lot of work that I agree with audit and he's made some hard points that I think are right, so they're so but I think that those would be. Those should be more than enough. Well in the spirit of Leroy, Jenkins Shoshana Weisman and John Schlepping. Thank you so much for joining us today. This was a real treat and I think our friends listener gonNA feel like they more fully understand the stakes of the issue and the underlying concerns that the folks on the right have about reform to thirty we are absolutely on our website will make sure that we linked to as many of those A. B., says that China John discussed that you can read more of their work and definitely be sure to follow both of them on twitter They're both excellent. Presences are now just following this debate and plenty of the other issues of the day, and We were just grateful to call them both friends so. Again John Shannon. Thank you so much. Thanks so much for having us. This program has been brought to you by the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights in the American founding. If you'd like to learn more about the James Wilson Institute please visit James Wilson Institute Dot Org. Thanks for listening..

James Wilson Institute on Natu Charles Cook James Wilson Institute Dot Org twitter James Wilson Institute John Shannon national review Shoshana Weisman John John Schlepping Leroy
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

05:01 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"I'm your host Garrett's NASCAR. Today we'll be chatting about a topic. Roiling conservative legal and policy spheres section to thirty of the Communications Decency Act of Nineteen ninety-six. Section to thirty reads no provider or user of an interactive. Computer Service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Originally passed in the Internet's infancy, so that online intermediaries that hosted or republished speech would be protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say in do section to thirty now has critics that argue it's time to revisit and take a second look at the law. We're pleased to host to writers and thinkers engaged in the debate over section two thirty. There are also friends of ours for several years. James Walston Institute. I John Schwanke is the director of policy and government affairs for the American principles project in this role, he develops and advances, the organizations legislative priorities by working with allied groups and with federal and state lawmakers. John was named the Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in Twenty Twenty. He has been published at number of outlets including first things, the New York Post the federalist and the daily caller. He is a graduate of Augusta College. Next Shoshana Weisman Shoshana is the senior manager of digital media and a fellow at the St Institute a Free Market think tank. She oversees our Asai Social Media, marketing and website while also working in writing on a variety of policy and regulatory subjects. She also likes spongebob. Finally joining us for this discussion, is Hassan Ahmad one of our semester insurance for James Wilson Institute. The Sun. Wasn't you get started, so she saw the first question is for you. Could you please clarify what does section two thirty actually say? For sure so before I. Answer just explain a little bit that my expertise comes from I since I managed to digital media for think, tank and I'm really into regulatory reform a few years ago as this became a bigger issue. I started getting into it more because it combines. My two loves social media and less regulation, so so that's where a lot of my perspective comes from it, and it's not an issue I ever intended or even wanted to get into, but it's one I've become really passionate about over the years, and it's because it basically says that platforms aren't liable for content. Put there by other people, and the reason that's important is because you know figure, facebook and twitter, just for example, because they're really big user platforms, other people post stuff I can..

John Schwanke Shoshana Weisman Shoshana James Walston Institute Twenty Twenty Claremont Institute Garrett James Wilson Institute New York Post NASCAR Hassan Ahmad facebook publisher Augusta College St Institute twitter senior manager director
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

14:00 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"A DC district court ruling might be mid nineteen sixties but it really didn't start in earnest until the Obama Administration. So at the time it was it was it was pretty newfound unprecedented phenomenon. And I don't think many people who weren't already kind of deeply thinking about article three theory about what the judicial power with the judge in power means. When does main were necessarily giving a whole lot of thought to this and again recall that post-coup Cooper versus Aaron this judicial supremacists mindset has percolated so thoroughly through the Legal Academy and the legal profession. That becomes something of a universal belief. So if you're an impressionable. Young Conservative law students young lawyer. Etcetera you come you come imbibed this universal logic without thinking about it too too hard. I can understand that But your point your point stance in more generally I would I would. I would always encourage listeners as podcasts as I would always encourage everyone to try to be intellectually consistent as possible Yeah that's great and then yet. Do you have any concerns about conservatives on these court or the lower courts Not Understanding the threat of judicial spacey Where're legislatures and Why did they confuse judicial review? Which is the legitimate power of our judicial branch with the notion of judicial supremacy? So there's not a whole light. The DEJESUS PHARMACY. Debate has to emanate from People and the most natural way that to happen is through. Our elected officials Through Senators Congressman Executive Branch. And then obviously also at the state level Quite unions against the notion that the US court is the on compensating final. An exclusive arbiter of Of all of all that is justice and Ryan. The world is a debate that has to happen necessarily from kind of outside the confines of benign black groped Oracle themselves. Just Thomas for for for. His part has intimated many times that he does not subscribe to this. He gives a footnote. If I believe in the gamble versus United States concurrence from last term that he basically says this is a lie I WANNA say. He intimated again in the sports gambling. A case Murphy of Twenty Eighteen. I think it was Don't quote me on that one but I in any event. It's just not as I said this numerous times And Justice Scalia. I I don't know if you've ever public but I I've I've definitely seen Robbie George and publicly say that he had private conversations with doesn't Scalia or close friends honestly and just as quickly as a numerous times this was a petition lies well but he but the with the revolt tasks to happen. Fundamentally from outside of the judicial system it has to happen with legislators on essentially assured committee on the Senate floor as it happened. Most fundamentally with the President Abraham Lincoln is the republic's greatest statesmen I in general. But certainly on this issue he without question the greatest oracle example of what not just rhetorically but substantively fighting back against an all powerful judiciary looks like right and I thought that trump had a brilliant brilliant a perfect opportunity to do exactly that to so-called Poland Abraham Lincoln last summer on the Census Citizenship Pace. Debate I thought that was a wonderful opportunity to to to truly go all the way to speak and say that we will apply to aces or to to the party for the stupid but we will not recognize it broader principle He didn't do that. I was a little bit point of the time. It's actually one of my hopes for president trump in a perspective second term. I I think a second term trump could steal Potentially unleash enough on a number of issues this being but one of them but I would love to see president trump. Go quote all the way in pull. Full Abraham Lincoln sometime in the second term. I think he's uniquely will sued doing so I I think he He generally does not seem to care about the inevitable blowback. That comes that a lot of people are pulling him kind of a fascist authoritarian. Anyway so I don't think that would grind grind his years very much And He seems to Kinda Harbor in an eight disdain Virginia power to begin with. I mean we can always remember. You know who who can forget his. We'd about the so-called Judge Right So kind of harbor. This intrinsic Disdain for the judicial branch so I think he is very well suited to doing it and I really. I hope he. Does you know these. These discussions that we've had today they. They make me hopeful Josh You know in that are people like like you who are on the front lines and are making these arguments in the public square But what also makes me Pessimistic about though. Is that while these arguments. I think are coherent What is broadly lacking courage And to make these arguments With the halls of Congress and at the highest levels of the If at the highest levels of the executive and with that in mind as a prudential matter baby are only are only hope in the short run is to actually have members of the federal judiciary. Make this argument. Because they still have the the best outlet by which to cut through the fog of any You know pressing other pressing issues and to make this argument in a case or controversy That seems naturally suited as a purely provincial matter. That's that's probably right I I'm enough of a skeptic in pessimists on all things political debate that's probably right You know I mean I'm I'm quintessentially conservative. So nothing if not a step tooker of all things before me and in the realm of politics in particular So yeah I generally look upon our political class as bike in kind of pain with a with a very very very broad brush as being a bunch of Punk feckless cowards. So I yes I. My hopes are not high For someone to take the stand that needs to be taken so you're probably right for a short term posse midterm matter. Our hopes are probably best for this to kind of gain traction within the judiciary itself And by the way a tangible concrete instance of that would be the Supreme Court. Granting served in ruling the correct way on the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions That that that would be that would be probably that would be the most profound anti Primacy advancement that the that the judicial branch could probably ever produce and I actually don't think it's outside the realm of possibility I'm not convinced the votes provided there is now a Clarence Thomas. His trumpy Hawaii concurrence has already indicated. He's narrow. I hard to believe that there are not at least one or two other boats for him. I'm not sure we have five that proposition quite yet It wasn't alone concurrence. Let's forget From Thomas and drummer his Hawaii but that that that would be a hugely successful very tangible thing that the court could do to advance. Its cause so josh. We don't have too much time left but We do want to be able to ask you one more question and I guess it would be a question that people who are most interested in these issues but they they wanna get a firmer from her hold on on where the hottest debates are happening in the conservative movement. Where do you think they would be? Best served Reading closely What are some topics that you think would be most helpful for people who are trying to feel these issues out. Would it be going back to the federalist papers? Do you think there's some really sharp on scholars better that are shedding light on these subjects presently? Oh yeah wow great question So yeah I mean you can't go wrong obviously with starting with the American founding itself and there's no better entryway to doing so than actually reading the federal safer. Then you know the people who don't have an autonomy our hands to everyone I think can just do a quick Google search and figure out what the most important papers are quickly. But you know I mean you start. Start with the obvious ones Tan Thirty nine thirty nine forty five fifty one. Seventy eight sixty five. Which which is the impeachment up in the news a lot recently. There's that that that's a great place to start I think I think Lincoln. Scholarship is also a great place to start Abraham Lincoln. He's my hero ball heroes. I'm probably born on his birthday In my opinion Abraham Lincoln was the one who brought America's founding into Russian and Harry Joshua's of course the great natural law scholar whose was closely affiliated with This proposition of advancing Lincoln as kind of the The one who truly Rod Jefferson's rhetoric in the declaration and made it into America's national DNA so to speak. So I think high jobless scholarship would be another great place to look of course involve like looking at the Lincoln. Douglas debates with with people who talk about I I would encourage also to To look at books Dr John Marshall and Joseph Story to the great nineteenth century jurists. Who I think who I think. Both in their own ways Did immense good in continuing an excellent explicatives And extending was the very rich vibrant centuries lawn English common legislation now we inherited from our angle forebears They're both brilliant. I think profoundly conservative men actually in their own ways That would be a good place to start as far as kind of older. Eighteenth nineteenth century based readings As far as as far as some more modern scholars Michael Paulson. Who I've mentioned already is my single favorite constitutional law scholar on all issues pertaining to the judicial supremacy debate. He's written a number of excellent largely articles on on this kind of easier to digest essays. You'll be a great place to look ray place to look Keith Whittington colleague Robert Georgia's in the Princeton Politics Department is another fabulous writer on all things pertaining to the bishop spicy debate. I think just a very sharp legal anchor More generally and and You know I mean just kind of more. Generally as far as like websites to throw out there I have all liberty website hosts host a lot of really nice full Richard. Reid is a good friend of they. Just consistently churning out quality S Yes absolutely now they. They're they're consistently turning out good work I try to read publications like First Things. Public discourse fairly regularly You know there's there's lots of places on the broader web to look as well on Phil Philip Hamburger. Who I mentioned another one of my very favorite scholars his his his First Amendment Stars. Roosters so rich. It's it's really it's really wonderful but you know. Hopefully that's a teaser. For now all right well. That's all the time we have We had a really great time speaking with you and putting all these questions passed you So thanks so much for that. And we look forward to seeing your article in public discourse. Thank you so much I get on the American mind. Claremont Institute's new online outlet. But but it will be wonderful to have that up there and I I really appreciate you guys having the on. Thank you so much. Thank you Josh. Do this program has been brought to you. By the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights in the American founding. If you'd like to learn more about the James Wilson Institute please visit James Wilson Institute Dot Org. Thanks for listening.

President Abraham Lincoln Josh You Clarence Thomas US Poland Abraham Lincoln Justice Scalia executive Lincoln president Obama Administration Oracle Senate Claremont Institute James Wilson Institute on Natu post-coup Cooper Legal Academy DEJESUS PHARMACY Ryan Supreme Court Google
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

14:02 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"The next decade railing against the evils of the administrative How significant is it to proposal That he's relying on a very strong executive to bring about this common good And you think natural Natural Conservative aversion to greater government our might be overridden by this Newfound concern among the Amari i-it's to the common good so I I will be very very interested to watch unfolds. How Adrian Administrative State arguments in particular Had how they take shape and in particular whether they kind of naturally coal trade in Guam on with the thoughts of a lot of young society right of center law student types. Because you're right I mean it is so anathema to what the Federal Society and the legal right more generally as preaching for decades It's actually fascinating. This brings me back to the The speed on the Century Committee in February twenty nine hundred nineteen between Josh. Holly who was then barely a month and a half into his Senate tenure with Naomi row who was at the time President. Trump's Nominated to replace now just as Cavanaugh on the DC circuit And was a You know she. She is a rich Scholarship rich crack academic background background the in the trump administration as far as administrative state issues. She's without any without any exaggeration. A charitable expert on those issues from a traditional Anti Michigan State perspective. Senator Holly who is many things. But he's certainly a A hardcore traditionalist social conservative decided to Pride and go back kind of law school era and post law school writing. It's not a questioning some of her social conservative Fetus and it was a really telling moment for me On kind of the broader legal right more generally to see who rallied so hard around Joe now judge Rowan and who kind of had Senator. Holly is back. I publicly Dade Senator. Holly like three or four times a week I thought he was asking all the right questions but it but you go back and look on twitter. It was. It was so fascinating. A lot of the more libertarian leaning anti State originalists were just so heartily dismissal of Josh Holly Line of Questioning and it was actually Adrian himself who gone to quite a bit of twitter banter with a lot of these types and he basically posed the following question. He said you know for a For Corlett VC circuit. Can't we have someone who's good on your issues and good on our issues into me books a whole lot of sense But this actually goes even further I I haven't read the full book but some screen shots of Of some pages for Ruth. Marcus the liberal Washington Post comments. He has a book on the Cabinet nomination and out. It'd be all that I I haven't read the whole book yet. But the pages someone screen shot at me and said my way show a A It's a discussion. That trump White House. I can't remember who was ended. It was definitely Don mcgann and maybe a couple other people close to him and the conversation that Ruth Discusses in this book basically talks about how the social conservative agenda overturning Roe overturning Griswald then an-and that really did animate the pedals society at its origins. Had so come to be supplanted by many society lawyers affiliates scholars Donor Cetera by the Anti Administrative State Agenda You know in fact In my pieces that we've got defended center. Holly I referred to this as the quote Monolithic Anti Administrative State cartel the people who who donate and just care about one issue which is Chevron deference our deference minimizing administrative state general. So all of that is Kind of the context here Now to put Mike personal cards on the table I do not agree with Adrian. Vermeulen Administrative State He has had a hustler. Say this quite colorful Dueling law review articles with skill. Hamburger fill obviously Early in his own right. Not just not just administrative state issues actually. Probably my single favorite establishment clause. I meant installer. Ever after that is on across at least in modern times truly phenomenal And fill fill started course. This new Boutique Lock in in DC quality of the new civil liberties alliance which is a really fascinating endeavor that kind of does Anti Ministry Litigation So in any event You know I I was twenty two eighteen. John Maher John Marshall Fellow with our friends at the Claremont Institute and we actually had Claremont and say had a besser hamburger on out to talk with a couple of days And Look I. That is more or less where my sympathies lie As a as an interpretive matter I deep sprawling administrative state is largely incompatible with the non delegation doctrine and the best thing clause that all legislative powers Herein Shelby Z. With the Congress Having said that having said that I do agree with Adrian and I do think that the crow family conservative proposition to believe in a strong A strong a strong precedents I think that this is a quintessentially conservative notion that that that goes back all the way to Hamilton's duals of Madison on the meeting of various article two provisions at the American founding It was contained of course by Abraham Lincoln who in my view. It's extraordinarily well into the conservative Shannon Lincoln or is a It was of course. Be paradigmatic pro-secular power pro presidential power figure. I think that is that was largely reflected in jurisprudence is both and I'M S. I'm squeezed chorus. Perhaps most famous morrison versus Olsen Sense. A kind of the best example of Unitary Executive Theory Clarence Thomas personified by his homily versus Rumsfeld descent. Witches in my opinion a brilliant Sant So I think a strong presence a strong article to war powers Type reading article to eat is a conservative and indeed a proper But both both a normative and positive A proper reading of our tradition and our constitutional theory and I think that that is fully compatible with scepticism optimistic. Yeah I think I think that's. That's that's broadly correct. I guess my only quibble with the with that Josh though is if we're to have a strong executive isn't the question is it isn't the quite the natural follow-up what are the still boundaries of constitutional restraint under which the executive still needs to operate. This is something I took up in an essay ankle by published soon. on the ver- mule essays as well but as conservatives are natural tendency is to grandy executive wide difference in Foreign Affairs but to commend an executive that is more restrained on domestic affairs. Renewal would posit that. A strong executive is is needed in In both and I guess the question is really. How do you reconcile the strong executive As the constitution permits it with extenuating circumstances and prudential concerns about replacing judicial supremacy with executive supremacy. Which is I think what it boils down to virtual right. No it's it's a very important question Now a lot of people who are as pro Lincoln as anti Jewish primacy as I am Site Michael Folks Paulsen frequently as I do I found this passion my own life. I I've been asked. Are you not just a F- effectively a monarchist? Because you support a president who can just kind of openly defy judicial orders etc There is something to be said for that criticism I. It's difficult to fully combat that criticism if only to to the extent that if you WANNA get really real about this If you WANNA like oil it down to the most tangible of all tangible thanks. It is a president United States. Who was commander in chief of the Armed Forces? It is it is. It is the commander in chief who on overseas the IRS which adults only enforceable At at at the barrel of the gun pay taxes if I if you want to like the the troop brass knuckles tangible Extreme in a of all these extremes and I in the hypothetical world where the three branches I'm working seriously disagree and go to Deal if not literal war with one other. The president would obviously prevail because he controls the armed forces so so from that reason alone I think that there's something to be said Bad the executive branch E in extreme horrible scenario would be the quote most supreme now having said that the framers of our Constitution Obviously did not believe in King Any reading of the Declaration of Independence would make that quite emphatically clear and they took pains to make sure a bit but the people would not elect. Someone is present a United States to that all important office. Who had monarchic ambitions who did not want to run roughshod per se over the Congress or the American people at large and federal papers? Have this line and fog as refrain over and over and over and over again in fact in fact it's it's the very purpose of the electoral college kind of temper the And I it is to have a process for electing the commander in chief whose ambitions will be temper will be more humble and prudent judgments But if you WANNA get like truly truly brass knuckles in the day Only one of the three branches controls the Armed Forces And it's not article. One is now article three very fair. Very Fair Someone that note. I think that that's a perfect segue to a discussion about judicial review in premacy one Subject that has been a special focus of your writing as as you've told us has been the Section of the notion judicial supremacy what is unique threat that judicial supremacy presents and. Why is it so often confused with judicial review at the also? Let me just say that The tiniest podcast she wonderful because my I S R N Full-fledged academic article will actually be out later this month on this very topic. It is Yeah it's a. It's actually adopted more or less wholesale from a Paper that I wrote my final year school for my friend and former former constitutional law professor will bode It was on this exact topic I do think the publisher at the time For a number of reasons the primary one being of which the actor I thought I was. I was on the time. Didn't billy incentivize to do some In any event of the paper kind of blended across the desk of Michael Stokes Paulson little little under a year ago. So that paper will be out later. This month feser Paulson's Law Schools Log Journal University of Saint Thomas Law Journal. So being a so I would. I would encourage listeners to go on lookout for For that paper So just dive here. Judicial Review which of course every Middle High School Siddiq student learns are hopefully learns close from. John Marshall's language and Madison itself. You know those famous words isn't The Duty Magician province to say what the what the law is Just review refers to the ability of article

executive Josh Holly Line Senator Holly Adrian Judicial Review President twitter Vermeulen Administrative State Ruth Trump Federal Society Michigan Guam Holly I Senator Century Committee Madison Cavanaugh John Marshall
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

16:38 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Hello and welcome to the James Wilson. Podcast I'm your host Garrett's networker today. Were delighted to be speaking with Josh Hammer. Josh is a nationally syndicated columnist and is of counsel with First Liberty Institute a graduate of Duke University and the University of Chicago Law. School Josh's worked at Kirkland and Ellis and clerked for Judge James Host of the US Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit. A former John Marshall Fellow with the Claremont Institute Josh's also a law school campus speaker through the Federalist Society in a college campus speaker through the young America's foundation he's been published by National Review First Things Fortune. The New York Post The Los Angeles Times the American mind and other leading publications. He's also frequent podcast guest on blaze TV joining us for our podcast is Joe. Egg Layer one of our interns of James Wilson Institute Joe. Why don't you get US started? We'd like to start by discussing originalism and its discontents for decades. Originalism has been the organizing principle behind the federalist society. One might say for all lawyers who consider themselves conservative. Why in your estimate has originalism been such an effective organizing principle for the Wiegel right for decades? So it's obviously deeply important. Question made only more important obviously by Our aging for meals white provocative. I saw a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure we'll dive into shortly as well. I think as Professor Plum you'll hinted at Atlantic at say there's a lot of historical context of course that goes into the rise of originalism We need to look back to what the war in court was doing. In particular of course run late mid to late nineteen fifties all the way up through Late sixties and then of course leading up until Roe v Wade itself There was a there was a lot of a lot of scene creation of newfound constitutional rights Kind of Encapsulated by cases like Miranda versus Arizona which Emmys Ronald Reagan's Torney general famously has always said I think continues to say that he only had one case overturning. All you've actually be Miranda versus Arizona Obviously to Griswald and that Roe and kind of sexual abrasiveness degen dud substantive due process and all that doctrinal nonsense so the timeframe for the rise of of originalism. Which kind of you know is your identify in. Its early stages with folks like and meese Robert Bork. Antonin Scalia Perhaps Frank Easterbrook to Saudi lesser extent. it really was from a historical timing perspective seen as kind of almost a reactionary movement against the perceived excesses properly perceived. That would add an obviously of course in my opinion of the Warren Court. I'm so that was the political and historical context for it. But if you look back Joe To the writings of of the framers Hamilton and Madison like obviously who by and large the overwhelming majority of the federalist papers. John Jay wrote a number. But it's really mostly Madison Hamilton. The two of them were quite explicit in their writing that they also resorted to looking at the original meaning of the Constitution as it was intended by the drafters and understood by the ratifiers. And we the people at large as being the only meaning the the only proper method of interpreting that document so the methodological pedigree does go back to the beginning of the republic. I think the the jurisprudence is John Marshall and Joseph story in the nineteenth century. Carry on that tradition But it is the modern history and it's kind of resuscitation and it's Continued success really was historically grounded in this reaction to the excesses of the Warren Court. Just as a quick follow up Garett here. Do you think modern originalism strength comes from its The consensus that it That it has among conservative lawyers. Or does it derive more from its internal coherency. Though so there's definitely something of self reverberating effect pedals society. There have been numerous books over the past decade written on this just just how astoundingly successful the Federal Society has been institution within the within kind of broader orbit of conservative institution. America you know the the much-vaunted vast right wing conspiracy that a younger Hillary Clinton once once a shot at work I had been by any objective. Measure WanNa be most emphatically successful those itunes and I think today along with institutions like National Review Heritage Foundation etc. It really is kind of one of the true icons of the the broader The broader constellation within the American right. At least since the Cold War and Post William F. Buckley post-match murder era so there definitely is something of a of an effect where success not naturally sweet beat success but it is also just a wonderfully some simple theory it is a very very very simple straightforward proposition E I think this I think there's something to that was simplistic elegant nature of it. Does I think intuitively appeal to a lot of young law. Students Young Lawyers Young Law clerks. Practitioners prospective academics alike. And there's also a really neat analogy of course to the methodological method originalism to the common law contracts. I mean every first year law student takes the common law contracts doctrinal course in in contracts class. You learn that. The goal of interpreting a contract is to give legal effect to the intense of the parties to the contract now original intent so to speak has been largely supplanted by original public meaning. Originalism is kind of the go-to originals methodology within originalism itself but that analogy still should should should hold true for a lot of people. The Common Law crime tracks should I think naturally indicate that originalism is more intuitive for a lot of young law students than other forms of so-called living constitutional perhaps No I think I think that's right as a matter of Political appeal as well Ask yourself what's the easiest articulation of that? A politician might be able to give for. Why he or she Might support the constitution. And now if you're if you're trying to ask yourself as a as a politician especially for a non lawyer who's a politician What kind of account might make intuitive sense to you? Even as a non as a non specialist of the standard originalism line that we often hear the constitution means what it says has a lot more appeal than Trying to get into the nuances of what is the moral framework that supports the constitution. Would you agree as a purely simplistic matter each? Just much easier. I think for a lot of Let's let's recall. I mean you know in American higher education. I guess some colleges universities have something closing analogous to like a bachelor degree or a in major in pre law studies by the overwhelming majority of people who go to law. School did not major in something called pre law. I right I mean I. I've lost people science. Obviously home in undergraduate majors I myself is actually an economics major I. I actually worked for a boutique. Economic research firm for two years between college law school so for a lot of people. You kind of go into law. School not necessarily being lifelong inundated in the language of the law. So there is something to be said For just Wrote wrote simplism wrote wrote simplistic nature of of theory You know for people who grew up especially thanking Serb militias backgrounds or origin Kinda Day Or classical liberal. Jeffersonian Founding Era America theory. There obviously is GonNa be a lifelong Urinating a lifelong desire. Lifelong love of natural law tradition And that is going to appeal obviously to keep who enter law school. Who have those certain life experiences in those backgrounds but I don't think that's fascinating conversation but I don't. I don't think that background is necessarily mutually incompatible with a With a profound respect for original public meaning originalism either So I I do think this is GonNa be said for that though that people are coming into law school from all sorts of backgrounds all sorts of viewpoints They major in lots of different subjects. Originalism is a very very very simple straight or proposition. I I do think it has political appeal as well. Yeah so it was that kind of backdrop in which Adrian Mule wrote his essay beyond originalism. Envy Atlantic In margin which we certainly would encourage all of our listeners to read it. It was provocative but it had a good number of rendering that we have the genes. Vilson Institute would hope that any Constitutional lawyer would take into account as he or she interprets the document the moral foundations in particular from US willingness to engage those deeper foundations on was something that made us a particularly drawn to the ESA Even if it's Even if it's a ending perhaps Offered some Diagnoses OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL. Order that we might not diagnose quite the same Josh you wrote a piece which hopefully will appear in the coming Days and weeks In which Joan our Very pleased to receive an advance copy of that was a very strong in Outlining mules central challenge. Can you perhaps give an account of that and give our listeners A preview of Your essay and any holes perhaps for mules argument. Sure now with with up to chat about that so you don't just will backdrop here. It's actually it's actually funny So Adrian. I had been firmly for a while mostly just from twitter. Although you know we have a ton of mutual friends he actually tied at my law school Alma Mater University of Chicago for a very long time so he actually was Himself a protest oil mentor of Sorts. To a lot of my friends and mentors so but we came from the I kind of Right right deal conservative twitter. I guess so to speak But we didn't meet in person until Disover MONTHS AGO ACTUALLY. It was early March. I I gave a talk at a Harvard Law School's Federal Society Chapter and then we got copy for like an hour and a half or so and he actually at that time told me that he was planning to write this piece for the Atlantic. Put It on my radar right then and then. He texted me when it came out. We've been in constant contact ever since so that's kind of the broader context And I and I do. Hope Peace Responding to Adrian's essay will be up by the time. This podcast comes out so I think there's a tendency on a lot of people. In kind of barrels -OCIETY originalist Judicial nomination space to just haughtily dismiss any e conservative challenge to Lower Keizo Orthodox doctrinaire originalist theory and we saw a lot of this I saw the day the Gary Unite Wrapping texting about this When when the essay launched there was just a lot of kind of snarky dialogue both on twitter and then both on the water essays space but Adrian's proposition to this year's proposition and I think it can only be understood within the broader context of the intellectual ferment. That's happening in the post twenty. Sixteen post trump Political rights more generally and just kind of to summarize how I see it I Donald Trump as kind of a wrecking ball of sorts who kind of came in and plowed over a lot of the pre existing consensus a lot of institutional icons of the broader ride Including Harley Limited to some of the ones we've already discussed I think took somewhat of a beating when someone of a set up such an unorthodox intellectual pedigree who said such unorthodox things from a Capital C. Conservative perspective was elected it while the president was a wrecking ball. He did not necessarily he didn't necessarily bring with him. You know a sixty. Five bullet points Powerpoint presentation as to what a coherent political philosophy. It looks like in that. Wake in the wake of kind of that. Rex SHATTERED CONSENSUS. There's been all these warring tribes and these and lots of vying factions trying to compete for. What the the so called conservative movements in on a political level. Of course the Republican Party itself should look like going forward and the reach t. I think last year in the Emily saw between his skirmishes between Sohrab Amari of the New York Post and David French of Tanya's national review now. He's at dispatch and the broader context that we saw playing out between so rob and David so rob was is kind of representing the so-called news which I think is a more moral list aggressively. Natural Law sent trick justice. Common good oriented pursuit of conservatism It's the line of conservatism that I probably personally identify with. I think it has a lengthy intellectual pedigree I I think I think the pedigree of English common law tradition of Burke and frankly of the American framers although that's certainly contestable propagation and so was going up against David French who was representing more of a truer classical liberal enlightenment. Centric procedural Byu Of our constitutional order in our political liberties understood more. Generally right now how that plays out in the in the confines of the constitutional debate is the originalists who originalism as a purely legal positivist proposition. Who View it purely along? The lines of a morally detached on application of holy neutral holy pluralistic legal norms. And this is a view of originalism most frequently associated with the likes of Robert bork Antonin Scalia And and folks like that would would kind of line up I think more readily in in in in David's cap whereas you know legal theorists in the riot including hardly limited of course to You know our friend Our friend highly I I think it would be more natural fit for Sora.

Originalism Josh Hammer Federalist Society Robert bork Antonin Scalia originalism New York Post twitter America Adrian Mule University of Chicago Law US Court of Appeals meese Robert Bork David French James Wilson Institute Claremont Institute Josh James Wilson Federal Society Joe Warren Court
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

14:22 min | 2 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"First of all I kind of disagree with the idea that we should have any control over. What Congress actually does I think I think they will not adopt laws that they themselves would not want to live under so that. I don't think we have to worry about the problem is that Congress doesn't want to adopt laws. They don't want to make very tough decisions. What THEY WANNA do is hand over those decisions to administrative agencies and then when their constituents come to them to complain they say well? I didn't vote for that. A that's the administrative agency. We'll just have to do something to take control of that agency. That's too easy and I'm afraid that's where Congress has come to so my view is that we should leave a lot of this to Congress to decide and some people in Congress may not want to live under some of the laws that are passed undoubtedly they will. They will be a minority in each case and if there isn't a minority then you have to wonder whether this is a real law or not or whether it's just a goal that is being sick because there ought to be people who oppose some of the things that Congress wants to do but when it can come together and make law than it is doing and responding in that in that sense to what the people want then we have a real legislative process going on well in the book. You also talk about the near future so the book was written in early. Twenty night came on early. Two thousand eighteen cracked and here. We are at the the end of Twenty nineteen and the Supreme Court is back in session and we have a number of cases coming up on the docket that have a significant potential to kind of reshape. This landscape that we're talking about the administrative law and so from your perspective. Do you see any key. Cases on the Supreme Court's docket that have a real potential to rain in the the administrative state and do see any cases in particular have a potential to strike at the heart of the president's that you mentioned so far as Chevron deference and it's causing our difference. I don't see any on the docket for the coming year. That doesn't mean that things can't come up during the course of this this term that are got raise these issues. One in the past term was The so-called Gundy case that many of us look to as a way for the court to deal with it unfortunately deal with this whole problem. Gundy case was a very good non delegation case because it gave it appeared to give the attorney general tremendous amount of authority to create a law for people and then prosecute them under which would be exactly the thing that that the should not be able to do. Congress should make the law and the administration the Attorney General of the President or someone should enforce that law. Unfortunately the case was argued before justice. Cavanaugh was confirmed or had taken his oath at least and so the they were only there. Were only a maximum of four justices on the court at that time who seemed to be willing to take on the non delegation question and so. I won't go into the details of it but it was not done turned out that the Gundy case came out in a different way entirely because they could not find a majority to do what the what I think. Many of us hoped they would do now it. I'm told I have not ascertained this for myself but I'm told that gundy now has asked for a rehearing of his case with Now that cavenaugh seated so there would be a full court whether the court will agree to that is questionable. And I'm sure there's a lot of opposition on the part of the Liberal members of the court that they won that case they they succeeded in pushing that aside and they don't want it to come up again now so very high politics I think. Probably being played within the conferences of the justices at this point to see if they can figure a way to get back and look at the gun declared Gundy case again. I don't know whether they will succeed. But if they if they do they will be a lot of bitterness on the part of the Liberal members of the court and that might show in the in the ultimate decision but other cases will come along. I have to. It's not as though I have a lot of time left but I have to be optimistic. That lawyers all over this country. See that and I hope they read my book. They will see that. There is an opportunity to bring a non delegation case before the Supreme Court. And so they will start talking with clients about whether those clients would like to take this case because they think it might go all the way to the Supreme Court because it raises these very important issues. That's how the system works the courts signals that it is ready to take a step. It might not have a full majority to do it but it looks as though there might be an so lawyers who are ambitious and interested in making an important point will bring these cases up through the process until they get to the court in fact I know of one case right now that is not at the court. But we'll probably get to the court and that has to do with the power of the president to impose tariffs. We're living at a time. Now where the president is imposing a lot of terrorist when every wants to impose a tariff. He does it. Where does he get that authority when the constitution says very clearly that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations? How can the president just do this? Well the president's been getting this kind of authority by Congress a fellow. I know a friend of mine. Very very brilliant lawyer. He's bringing along a case representing the steel aid industry Which is complaining about the president's steel tariffs. He's he's making a completely non delegation argument even though he himself personally is a liberal but he's been retained by his clients to attack this and impose interject the non delegation doctrine. So that case is now at an appellate court within the tariff review area that separate from the general cases and after it goes through the appellate process there he will probably lose because there are cases that are against him that we're not decided on that are non delegation on non delegation basis. He will probably seek review by the Supreme Court that will be another big non delegation case. But I'm quite confident that there will be many more coming along because what I said before about lawyers who get the signal. They realized. There's an opportunity here. They have a client. Who's willing to pay the cost for this or or there's some group that's willing to pay the cost for financing this case and they will bring it along through the process and there will be many such cases if the court can provide signal that it's ready to take on the non delegation issue all the next time one of those cases is taken. The justices would be well served as well as the lawyers who argue those cases. It'd be well-served reading Towards the end of your book you have a Nice Nalysts of some of the predominant arguments on the left and the right In support of the administrative state I a strong defense of the curtain regime from Jillian Metzker of Harvard. And then you have Adrian for Mule of Harvard. Offering a defense of the administrative state from the right. Can you compare and contrast left? Verbiage would probably consider himself more on the right. But Yeah This question on this better than certainly not part of a consensus on the on the legal right but yeah those those arguments are certainly going to be in play. I think our listeners would be very interested in your thoughts. Yeah well I in in reading the the The justifications that had been advanced by the rules and and Metzger 's and so forth. I don't see anything in those Justifications that makes a lot of sense to me because they don't seem They don't seem to understand that the powers that are exercised by the administrative agencies. Come from somewhere. And they're not and and their justification seems to be well. If Congress passed a law that administrative agency can use in some original and and and useful way even though there is some doubt about whether the law was intended to cover this area. That's all that is necessary. They have to have a colourful claim that they have been authorized. Do this. It's kind of like a Chevron justification but the idea of that that the the separation of powers really has no more meaning than that that Congress can authorize an An administrative agency to take actions of of any kind just in general makes a mockery. It seems to me of our separation of powers and I've read their arguments and I still maybe it's deficiency on my part but I don't see that it that they take account of the separation of powers in the constitution in fact there's some statements by remove. That's that seemed to be simply this. And that is if Congress that these agencies could not be doing anything if they weren't authorized by Congress and since they are doing something then they must have authorization from Congress that to me doesn't doesn't take account all of what the separation of powers is intended to do. Let's talk just for a minute because we haven't had a chance to of why we have a separation of powers and and the reason that that The framers adopted a separation of powers is that their view was that if the same group or the same person has both the power to make law and the power to enforce it. That is a great danger to the liberty of the people and the liberty of the people was the guiding principle of the framers. And so when we talk about administrative agencies having essentially the power to make the law and enforce it we're violating the whole reason for the separation of powers in our constitution. And I I read Metzger. I read virtue. I I read many other people and I don't see that they really pay any attention to what the purpose of the separation of powers was I. Think on on that Cheery note we're going to a but for our listeners the book is judicial fortitude the last chance to rein in the administrative state by Peter Wallison. And we're just so pleased to have you with us. Thank you so much pleasure. Thank you very good questions and you obviously done some deep thinking about this issue. Great thanks a lot for your time. We hope to see you. This program has been brought to you by the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights in the American founding. If you'd like to learn more about the James Wilson Institute please visit James Wilson Institute Dot Org. Thanks for listening..

Congress Supreme Court president gundy Metzger Chevron James Wilson Institute on Natu Cavanaugh Peter Wallison James Wilson Institute Jillian Metzker attorney Adrian James Wilson Institute Dot Org Attorney General
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

08:00 min | 3 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Every time I go I can't help but see how more religious societies coming even on our own people who describe themselves as secular Jews. You see very clearly see. They're starting to Reimb- race religious practices that doing doing ceremonies that they don't quite understand but they under they want some sort of connection with they are and where they come from. You see more men wearing hammock. You See Places more places shutting down for sure about all of this is very consist. This is all held together with a society. That is very very more than in many respects. So I think you can see that. That's just example. I could probably quote others. But that's an example of society that was very sensitive mystic Atheism was seen as the position of the intellectual class. Well that's changing and it's changing faster. I think than most people realised so those are examples. I think that gave me Hook that a type of reintegration of reason and faith north beyond the West. It's not beyond us. Decline is always a choice and we don't have to all declined by simply letting reason faith one third or further away from each other. So your arguments meet sympathetic years on this podcast and it's really a pleasure as you kind of take the reader on a tour through centuries of Western literature but the Frank Reality persists that a lot of people in the West especially especially young people. Just haven't been exposed to the ideas that underlie the claims in your book. So if you can assign a required reading list for every person in America what three books would you include under less? Not Including of course reason faith in the struggle for Western civilization deeply unfair. Well there's there's any number of books Let me start For those people who are interested in exploring and understanding the tradition of natural law and who are prepared to take the time to think through these questions to ask questions about the nature of reason and how it relates to questions of human freedom to justice to the nature of society community and even the nature of bride's And it's tough but I'd recommend Jones finished his book. Natural Law and natural rights now slightly buys he was my is. He supervised mydeal of Oxford. But that book I think is very profound in explaining reasons potentialities powers and the loss check is about the case for God. And what's interesting? Is that the book. Says Look you don half to believe in God to accept all these claims about natural reason not to rights and natural law by the same thing you don't have to accept belief in God to adhere to claims of natural but natural order does tend to point you in that direction because it makes you ask questions about where this ultimate reason come from. So that's one text I think that and it's it deals with many of the modern objections. Right that we've talked about to to the nature to having a more than instrumental view of reason and having this Richard Conception of a reason that points in the direction truth the good and the beautiful. That's one thing second which I would suggest. And this is a very different and so some respect it's also hot book I would really recommend reading Adam. Smith's the wealth of nations. Why would I say that? The one and one reason is because it's a type of representations type of the high point Scottish in mind and it's important because it's a work of social signs and so work of social science that tries to understand reality through and empirical lands and that's very important because I think that we've lost saw off in many respects the nature of some science and the way in which the plying it can reveal many important things about the world that we had hitherto not paid attention to or had ignored so Smith's wealth of nations does reveal many things about the workings of Modern Commercial Societies. But people had sent before but had not really put then minds around and had not outlined to the systematic way. But it's a very important work of social sign that I think represents in many respects the it's the culmination if he liked the best of the Scottish enlightenment also represents one of the major moments all of the enlightenment project and this is something I think frankly a lot of religious believers should read and have an appreciation for to understand how these things these things what lost of all This is a much sought text. I'd really suggest reading Benedicta. Sixteenth Reagan's address. It's about three thousand eight hundred words long. It does not take very long to read and I would really recommend reading it first of all by itself. The way takes us through the trajectory of West history. How the West became the West? How how the integration of faith and reason started to break down but they're not recommend highly recommend reading it in conjunction with the common tree that was written by the late in the very great father. James Show it's a whole analysis operations address reasonably addressed and then re father Sol's country on the. It's it's extremely helpful for understanding what's happened to us where we've come from and how we can move back towards the type of integration of faith and reason that that benedict talked about at. Regensburg which I say is central for understanding. What's happened to the West and how we can put things to get on to say that it may be one of the last things work. But he wrote the dolphins and it's on the back cover as the Smith the two thousand lorries and economics very different men from different both Berry Devout Christian approaching things one from the standpoint of the social sciences from the standpoint of the team from also and yet many of their conclusions about the world and the relationship between faith and reason end up in the same place so natural or natural rights is One Book I would seriously just people read Adam. Smith's wealth of nations and the Reagan spoke with mass accompanied by Father Shelves Commentary. The book is reason. Faith and the struggle for Western civilization by Dr Samuel. Greg you can find it at fine booksellers nationwide and on Amazon. Thank you very much Sam for an enlightening conversation and we look forward to chatting with you again in the future sometime. Thanks for having me on. It's been a pleasure to be with you and I greatly commend the work of James Wilson sent to anyone. Who's listening you doing? Great great work. Thank you very much. Thank you. This program has been brought to you by the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights in the American founding. If you'd like to learn more about the James Wilson Institute please visit James Wilson Institute Dot Org. Thanks for listening..

Smith Natural Law James Wilson Institute on Natu Reagan James Wilson Reimb James Wilson Institute James Wilson Institute Dot Org America Regensburg Richard Conception James Oxford Modern Commercial Societies Jones benedict Dr Samuel Sam Amazon Greg
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

12:51 min | 3 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"How can it be reasonable to that? Isn't really reasonable to simply exclude the possibility that there is a rational creates off the low cost which I see my talk great deal about. How can we exclude that? As a reasonable possibility and simply assume that nothing us or chaos is at the beginning of everything that I liked often to say students. Something can come from nothing. Reason cod come from unreviewed. Order emerge from Kales in itself. So my point is that at that particular speech I think benedict really summed up many of the dilemmas. The West face When the synthesis of reason in size which begins Initially with the Jews has contributed to by the Greeks and really given form I Christianity. What happens when that integration starts to disintegrate and I think you end up with some of what I call the pathology reason and pathologies of faith but I talked dealers out in some good chapter book on that note? I want to focus in on one of those pathologies. Were reading your book. I couldn't help but think of the passage in CS Lewis Abolition of man where he writes quote or the old initiated the neat new merely conditions the old dealt with its pupils has grown birds deal with young birds when keeps them to fly. The new deals with them more as the poultry keeper deals with young birds making them thus with us for purposes of which the bird knows nothing. Can you explain the dare these efforts to reshape man? According to his own designed a modern day permitting that ignores laws of nature and abolishes conventions on this idea of liberation could you expound on the idea that freedom find greater expression in the laws of nature rather than in their abolition idea probably strikes to modern liberal years so in other words? How rose liberate well? I think the type of freedom that we're talking about is to one is the freedom that comes from recognizing reality. You can't be free from reality. You want to be free from reality. But you're trying to really free you'll self from the reality that we have reason our reason. There's more than purely instrumental. We can no more than empirical truth. We can no more than the truth revealed by net the natural sciences and in fact that the reason we do the natural sciences in the first place is because our reason tells us the truth is worth knowing for its own sake. It's not just a purely instrumental thing. That truth is worth knowing for. Its own sake. The thought for turn now. We all week fallible. We make mistakes. We can all sorts of dumb things and our choices and we rationalize evil things all the time but none of that detracts from the fact that when you think about the nature of human reason it's more than purely instrumental a good example. I always like to use his someone who does medicine. They're not just doing it because I think it's fun to nor that. Penicillin kills germs. They're doing it. Because the presumably want to save lives and promote health so those things golden themselves. They're not sorted impurity determined objectives. That things that are reason instantly recognized as being true in itself so in that sense the the connection to freedom the biggest connection to freedom is that we only truly free in the full sense of the word. When we live in truth there's no freedom it living in lies. There's no Adam to be found in in in embracing era. Because when you do that you'll blinding yourself to Deepa and and y the realities that are around us and Apprehensible to our reason if we choose to use it. So that's what I mean by this high of freedom and I think that is pot all very much part of the western traditions type of freedom for excellence. The Jews understood this extremely well but you really are the ones who begin this whole trajectory. They are the ones that understanding. It's very clearly the deck log. For example. The loss of the Dick Ball is really the Indian all about surmounting. Our Passion Nice stopping similar in the Greek so that the Greeks have the problem that they can't root the life of virtue in the life of good in some sort of DEEPA I call. It gets meaning and purpose and direction to the universe. Christianity comes along and basically that the ultimate form of freedom is the freedom that comes from Susan the true the good and the beautiful leading the life of excellence and the slavery and unfreedom is when we choose to dwell in era and that I think is crucial for understanding the West today. And I don't think it's a mistake that when we lose sight of that decadent starts to emerge very quickly. I think I think there's I think there's a lot there that we see in a lot of the work that we do with James Wilson Institute for example Professor Professor Arcus Caught a lot of flack after the hobby lobby decision came down in two thousand fourteen because he expressed strong insistence on the line that we hear from a lot of conservative lawyers. That you do. In fact have a right to be wrong is compatible with this idea of religious toleration and religious freedom and persistently professor was articulating the belief a beliefs of the American founders including Lincoln. That religion has to have some core objective in or or what we would call Inherent value not just instrumental values. Right right I mean when I talk about something like Religious Liberty. Religious Liberty is not about. It's not about tolerance place. That's something I think is very important. Understand religious liberty is not about simply establishing a Roman which killing each other because of religious differences. That's a that's a that's a type of support at the. It's NOT UNIMPORTANT. It's actually quite but the real point of religious liberty it any reason it makes ultimate sins is because it's about the search for ultimate truth. I saw such. It's such a transcendental truth about the universe and religious liberty is about giving everyone the freedom to search for those and then living their lives in accordance with the truth with the with the conclusions they reached out these very important questions so and that I'd say the bulk I usually just look at an example. The first thing to say is that that's pretty much how come to students if you re locked some literature tolerate. It's all about truth. He talks about truth over and over and over again. Lock is not Indifferent about religion. He's clearly a Christian. He gave the whole book reasonable defense of Christianity. But he knows he's not early. Just relative kit for him. Toleration is all about establishing conditions whereby people can peacefully knowledge of the truth. You find the same thing more or less articulated in things like document dignity topsy. Mommy which makes it very clear that the reason you have tolerance is that people can then be free to search for the truth so the truth is the ultimate foundation of religious liberty and that I think is something that you don't find this articulated in other cultures. You really don't you. Don't find this articulated in the cultures outside those that had been Outside the one that's being formed by the fates of the West which of course a Judaism Christianity tons sign the sort of language and thought being employed and I think it goes back to understanding the relationship between reason incite. It's coated the Western tradition. And which gives freedom the particular meaning that we've been talking about today. Yeah you detail house Modern Liberalism has gutted reason and theological truth from many religions resulting in what you call these religions of sentiment but then leads to the natural follow-up are we better off holding onto these shells though deeply flawed for their secondhand benefits or. Do you think that these are just too flimsy to contain any real value? You know your your. Maybe the person today asked me that precise question and I think it's obviously people's minds right because this is the argument about well. Maybe I don't believe these things myself. But it's nice to have religion around because sort of softens mores it makes people more respectful to each other. It makes life more pleasant if people go to Church on synagogue on Sunday. It's nice to have all these sorts and these things are not to be discount. They're not unimportant but it does seem to me that if you empty out the shell that in the end at some point and I think we're seeing this now there are plenty of people who will say well actually. This is just meaningless. This is in the end. The type of false life false culture false society. That would leave. You wish you just dispense with this because we're just way too rational things so I think society goes down that top to thaw you end up like a lot of western Europe with us the type of Cultural Christianity in some parts of different countries. But the number of people who actually really believed to be true is actually small. Know that said you don't have to be a religious belief to recognize and I say this very clearly that in with all talks. Judaism and smaller Orthodox Christianity. You find the most reliable most persistent transmission of the fall. Theses the four themes. I think lie at the heart of what it means to be the West and the fall. Things are creation. The idea that there is a divine creator. We Co create roles that this creates or is rational. He's logos involved in the world. He he's not a sort of days to clockmaker and he suddenly not saint secondly freedom which we've already talked about third is justice and the particular understanding of justice and you find articulated in the Hebron Christian And then of course this emotional faith itself and Judaism Christianity particular understanding open nature of thing which takes reason very very seriously. You don't need to be believed to accept all those things as being true so one of the things I say is that even non believers that can accept that the synthesis of reason and faith. It's being worked out in the West over. The centuries is central to identity. What that does for the believer is puts the believer in that position whereby they have to be much more willing to say that. I'm a believer on Christian Evangelical Catholic Eastern Orthodox Jew practicing Jew. Because I believe not just because I've had some sort of religious experience although I say you know that's something. A lot of people have not simply because of what Christians coke race although that's obviously part of the deal but also because I believe that the count the will that is offered by the Jewish and Christian faiths each true and it's true because it's reasonable and this I think is something that has been lost sight all by many people including many very serious Jews and Christians who live good lives believe in God practice their religion very faithfully..

Deepa Kales unreviewed Christian Evangelical Catholic benedict Adam Penicillin hobby lobby Europe Professor Professor Arcus Dick Ball James Wilson Institute professor Susan Lincoln
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

06:52 min | 3 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Hello and welcome to the James Wilson podcast. I'm Garrett Snicker we're pleased to be joined on the James Wilson podcast by Dr Samuel Greg. Dr Greg is research director at the active institute in Grand Rapids Michigan. He writes and speaks on questions of political economy economic history ethics in finance and Natural Law. He holds a D Phil in moral philosophy and political economy from the University of Oxford. He is the author of a new book reason. Faith the struggle for Western civilization from Gregory Gateway. Joining us for this podcast. Is Jake Rainier? One of our summer interns at the James Wilson Institute Jake. Why don't you start off so tell us your inspiration for writing the book? Why now and why? This topic was basically two reasons. One is promo time typing thinking about as the the bookstores. Has You know with a chapter about put then Zepa Sixteenth Regensburg address. And I've written about that in the past That's address came out. Of course many people thought it was primarily about Islam and some of the challenges that that usually radical Islamism presents for west. But if you read the text itself becomes very very clear that yes in one level. It's about Islam. But more fundamentally it's about us it's about us who live in this culture and civilization that we call the West and I think that speech was primarily directed to the West. It was directed to those of us who see ourselves as living within that particular tradition way of approaching the world. So that'd been germinating in my mind for a long time. And as time went on more and more looked at different different phenomena ranging from the emergence all season which is the absolutisation of the natural sciences. You find that much of the academy and much of the world But also in things like the religious character of some of the ideologies that are doing such damage to the West today. Whether it's different forms of Marxism whether it's a type of nihilism type of them. That's just beneath the surface. Many of the political philosophies we see floating on around us so that was a long time station. If you like this project nothing which I think was also important was the fact that I a few years ago. I was sitting in Israel of all places in a couple places lecturing to a group of very bright Jewish students about Adam Smith's wealth nations taking them through the books and I thought to myself. Well here I am sitting in the Middle East and yet this is indisputably a Western country. And so many it started the crystallized for me that the west goes far beyond geography. It's about a set of ideas on underneath. That set of ideas is this synthesis of reason in fe which I think is so central to understanding what the waste is what has happened to it and where it's come from so those were the two things the long term station but that's immediate reflections upon being in Israel other particular point of time thinking about how does this all fit into this tradition. Recall the West so those are the two things along long-term just station and then some immediate thinking sparked by being in a country that as I said it's definitely in the Middle East but it's definitely a Western country Yeah so you You make it clear in the preface to your book that the The book is Springing out of some essays that you've gone and some longer writings that you've done over the years But yet I the the framing device that you chose wasn't deed. Pope Benedict and two lectures that he gave You discuss a lecture in your final chapter that he gave before the German parliament. Twenty eleven. On how how did you conceive of the importance of both of these lectures today? Strike you as important when they were delivered or was it upon reflection that you found their Their significance and their use for you in your in your book. Well I suddenly understood the significance off these speeches when they were given there was something pretty remarkable for example about a German boone perk being.

Dr Samuel Greg James Wilson Pope Benedict Adam Smith Middle East James Wilson Institute Israel Phil Grand Rapids Michigan Jake Rainier Garrett Snicker Zepa Sixteenth Regensburg University of Oxford research director Natural Law Gregory Gateway
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

03:17 min | 3 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"And the custom when Marshall Becomes chief justice. Is that during these discussions. The justices may only have wine. If it's raining I assume that this was to cheer themselves. On Marshall's custom was to always ask one of his colleagues often associate justice story. You Know Brothers Story. We look out the window and tell us what the weather is. Story might say well. The Sun is going down and a clear sky marshal would say our jurisdiction is so vast by the law chances. It must be raining somewhere. The wine was served to the Marshall Court. This may explain the number of unanimous decision. I'm serious I'm serious about that. Because because there was this was a man who I mean except versus Jefferson. He really really liked almost everybody. Almost everybody liked him Justice story the first time he heard him as a lawyer. I love his laugh and I realize I've written a number of biographies. This is the first person who's a laugh was described. Wow did out in this whole like It's not that they lacked a sense of humor. But but this is the this is the first person I ever read the description of laugh and stories. I love his laugh. So that shows you you know what kind of a guy? He was one-on-one and that's how he ran his court. I mean he al- also. There was the power of his mind. There was the power of his legal reasoning. But but the first thing the sort of the first story of this personality is this this warmth this geniality this ability to get along with people and You know the expression herding cats. Well you know that that can be what what the Supreme Court is like or any any small group politics and Marshall had that ability. He had that gift and That that geniality that good fellowship was was a key part of it. Well Richard. You have an open invitation to join us at John Marshall. One time home in Washington. Dc The decor Bacon House. I've eighteenth and F- okay so you can enjoy some wine as Marshall perhaps enjoyed it With us in some other martial files okay. Great they'll take you up on that great. The book is John Marshall. The man who made the Supreme Court Richard Brooker joined us for a a wonderful interview. We encourage you to buy it All bookstores nationwide or on Amazon On the Internet Richard. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you Garrett. Thanks for having me all right. This program has been brought to you by the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights in the American founding. If you'd like to learn more about the James Wilson Institute please visit James Wilson Institute Dot Org. Thanks for listening..

John Marshall Marshall Court James Wilson Institute on Natu Supreme Court Richard Brooker F James Wilson Institute Dot Org James Wilson Institute Garrett Bacon House Jefferson Washington Amazon
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

10:14 min | 3 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Of a an account of the story and so two but to make this visit to the reader to me. I decided to for each one of these cases to go back however far that would be to catch the story at the beginning of it. And sometimes this not going back to colonial times The obvious examples Dartmouth Woodward and this is a case decided in eighteen nineteen. It's a fight over the governance of the college but The story begins Before the revolution when Dartmouth I gets its charter from George. The third and and the case will be decided based on the language of that charter and the structure that it set up at Marshall's decision that this this was a contract and therefore Something that the constitution prevents the states from impairing under Article One section ten. But but so I take it back to the very beginning and then carry the story up and similarly with you know with all the other cases the Cherokee cases where we have to start with what were the relations of the of the Cherokees With the United States Up to the point they get in legal trouble Gibbons Viagra and the steamboat case or or why did we have steamboats in the United States? Who invented them? When and how How did this monopoly? That's being challenged in the case got established in the first place and You know it it makes the story more queer. A lot of fun Sometimes they're real characters involved in these cases Some of the some of the back story is pretty jaw-dropping Fletcher versus pack cited by the Court and eighteen ten. This is This is a another contract case. Really the first important one and that begins begins the crooked land deal in the state of Georgia in seventeen ninety five. The state of Georgia is broke They sell thirty five million acres of land for a penny and a half an acre for land companies which were formed for the purpose of taking advantage of this sale and it turned out that every single member of the Georgia legislature that approved. This was bribed. The going rate for their vote was a thousand dollars and one guy took only six hundred dollars and he said well. I wasn't greedy. That's why they helped on my extra four hundred dollars. I mean it's it's it's it's entertaining you know and then you should be entertaining should I hope it does entertain the reader. But but these are also you know these. Are It also shows how porno these cases are because people? Don't go to court over nothing. You know. People would rather not do that most of them they go to court either because they really want something or they're really afraid of something you know. They're afraid of being cheated there or they're afraid of going to jail cases Aaron burr his treason trial. He would have been an act that you know if he'd lost that was the penalty for treason so he was fearful of his life and You know on the other hand people people want money Jefferson thought burner was a trader. He wanted him punished So so they're they're they're powerful motives On either side and I wanted to be able to capture not only the entertainment but the drama every one of these cases. Well we envisioned this conversation jumping around the book a little bit and I hope we get to talk about Some of those cases and the figures and the drama as well. But as this is the James Wilson Institute podcast and we have a nice robust constituency of lawyers judges and clerks judges among among them. We thought we would first focus on the most general question of how Marshall approached his role as a judge he approached it. I think I'll use the word conservative late. You know. Not Trying to invoke either side in in either current political debates or the political debates of his time. I mean this literally in the sense that as a judge you deal with cases. That's all you deal with. It was interesting to me before Marshall even get on the court in the decade or so that the Supreme Court existed before he got the job of chief justice there were several instances where the president or Congress s Supreme Court to do other things. You know asked for advice on Some PD question or asked to supervise tension. Requests of revolutionary war veterans. There were several instances. And then all those instances the court said now you know. We're not going to be Jack of all trades. Our job here is to be the Supreme Court for cases that arise before the federal judiciary. That's what we do. That's all we do at that informs marshalls behavior. He you know. He sits there with his colleagues five of them. At first and later they become sixth court increases from six to seven justices and they wait to see what lands and their laps. Now you know. They're not. They're not blindfolded here. They they are aware of what's happening in the legal universe. And they're certainly aware of the politics that that swirls around them but they he added they are there to decide cases now the the innovation that he's often credited with and this is in his. You know his first monumental case Marlboro versus Madison at eighteen now. Three this is the first time that the court strikes down. A portion of a law passed by Congress And this is Yeah this is rightly considered a landmark decision. I wonder if it isn't a little over emphasized because Marshall wasn't making the doctrine of judicial review out of whole cloth in eighteen. O three right. This is already a concept that people understood. It was already out there Alexander Hamilton had written about it and the last of the federalist papers where he covers the judiciary at the end of the series Marshall himself had spoken about it at the Virginia ratifying convention in the summer of seventeen eighty eight. He was one of the delegates to that convention which was going to approve or disapprove the key the new constitution for the state of Virginia. And he he was pro-constitution then he gives a speech one of the speeches. He gives us on the judiciary and in the course of that speech. He does expert on the principle of judicial review and There was even before Marshall even gets on the court the there was a case in the seventeen ninety s involving the constitutionality of a tax on carriages Now it turned out of the court decided to this tax was okay but they were certainly in a position. Since the question came up to go on the other way so the que- the constitutionality of a law had appeared. Ask a question before the court before Marshall even gets on the court so yes margarite is is. It is an important decision. It is First Time it's done and then it's very rarely done there after I mean the the most famous time it's done as dreads Scotney. Seven this is this is decades after Marshall is has died and a A A judge pointed to me after my book came out. There were a couple of cases with the Marshall Court decided in the eighteen twenties having to do with WHO owned It was either the shoreline or the islands and Mobile Bay. Was it still the federal government or was state of Alabama? This is after. It's become a state and the court There had been a law passed by Congress implying that the federal government could still dispose of these lamps and then the court set now. He can't do that. It's now state Alabama's now state therefore it has control over these lands so the point is there was another. There was another instance of the court. overruling a portion of a law passed by Congress much less famous or notorious and dread Scott but But my only point is. This wasn't happening a lot but It was a principal that was that was already understood and and Marbury famous. Because it's the first time it's actually made real. Yeah I see it as as twofold one. You Misunderstood more being twofold. Fold one as you articulate the misunderstanding that the case established judicial review merely articulated. How it was always They're in the constitution under our constitutional scheme but the second is this strange misunderstanding. That judicial review means judicial supremacy. And how when the court decides Case it is binding as a constitutional amendment is passed through the power and logic of the supremacy of the Supreme Court within our judicial system. If you can talk a little bit about why what why there exists that confusion well Certainly other branches Have have challenged that notion that you just articulated marshals on lifetime. Andrew Jackson.

Court Marshall Supreme Court Marshall Court Congress s Supreme Court Congress United States George Dartmouth Woodward Alabama Georgia Aaron burr Viagra Virginia Madison Fletcher Alexander Hamilton James Wilson Institute Jefferson
"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

11:00 min | 3 years ago

"james wilson institute" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Hello my name is Garrett's networker. Welcome to the James Wilson podcast. Today we're joined by Richard Brooke. Eiser Richard is the author of many biographies of the American founders. Most recently he has written a biography of the great chief justice. John Marshall the man who made the Supreme Court from Basic Books Richard. It's a pleasure to be speaking with you. I'm joined by one of our interns for the James Wilson Institute Josh Hero and were just overjoyed to be able to speak with you before we dive into our questions. We noted that in your acknowledgment section. You mentioned one of the close friends of our founder and director. Happy arcus as one of the influences that you're writing a book Michael Woman and so before we get into the book itself. We were hoping you can tell us a little more about how our DEA friend Michael was a helped you writing the book well. He was very helpful. He steered me towards The best the Marshall Scholarship I never even watched to law school so I was coming to this from the outside and that that's an obvious disadvantage. I think it's an advantage because it means that I am looking at everything crash and I have to make sure that I understand it myself. Which helps me in explaining it to most of my readers who are also going to becoming to it as non-lawyers on Kamla professors about But that means I need some helpful Indians to Just guide me through the Marshall. Scholarship and Michael Uelmen was was certainly very helpful. steered me towards The best box Marsha books out there which is one of the reasons I decided to do. He seemed to be relatively under done considering his importance. And there are excellent books on him. But it's not like someone who's been president for instance or war Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. Even before the musical there there was just a lot more about all these guys and relatively little for the great chief justice so So that will seem like free field and Michael UELMEN was one of the Expert Helpers who gave me a map of that before I punched him excellent. I think your your book is very clearly written to an audience. That is familiar with Marshall. But you don't really take for granted the reader's knowledge. Would you be able to tell us a little bit about the narrative framing process that you employ in the book and why you specifically made decisions to focus on Marshall and his relationships and what is it exactly about his personal connections that served as a backdrop for discussing Marshall's understanding of law and politics overall? Well I thought to personal relationships which were most important to his public career were first his early contact and his almost boundless admiration for George Washington. And that's second his lifelong animosity with his second cousin. Once removed Thomas Jefferson which was returned in spades by Jefferson. Marshall volunteered at the age of nineteen for the Virginia militia. In seventeen seventy five this as soon as the news of of Lexington and concord it spread throughout the colony and then the following year. He joined the continental army and he was in free. Battles Washington demanded it Brandy Wine Germantown in the fall. Seventeen seventy seven monmouth courthouse. In the summer. Seventy eight and between Germantown and MONMOUTH. He was at the Winter Encampment Valley forge where Washington was also in command show. He saw the commander in chief and victory. He saw them defeat and he saw him in this very trying winter and his conclusions from these firsthand. Experiences was that Washington was the man who had guided us through the revolution. He was the man who saw through. Who who made it a success and he never forgot that it was imprinted upon him when Washington at the end of the war returns this commission. Congress in December. Seventeen eighty three Captain Marshall Rights as old school. Fellow James Monroe and he called Washington the greatest man on earth and that was an opinion he would never change and he would follow. Washington's lead throughout the rest of his life When when it becomes a question whether we need a new constitution in seventeen eighty seven? Eighty Eight He is one of the lesser followers of Washington pushing for the ratification of the new constitution. decade later WASHINGTON summons him to Mount Vernon to basically ordered him to run for Congress when our first two party system has already developed federalists of of Washington and Adams Hamilton versus the first Republican Party of Jefferson amount and again Marshall follows Washington. He is a federalist and he agrees After some persuading To RUN FOR CONGRESS. And He is the congressman who tells Congress a year later that Washington has died and he calls him first in war first in peace. I in the hearts of this country and this is an attitude that he would keep for the rest of his life. The only book ever rights as a five volume biography of Washington the policy preferences that he has as chief justice are those of the federalist. Party He believes In a federal government in which in crucial respects the federal government has supremacy over the state governments He believes in the Commercial Revolution The Hamilton Vision A lot of a lot of that. The hammel Tony and vision is sustained by Supreme Court decisions that Marshall Issues so this is the lifelong fact of his encounter with George Washington. Now the the other important man is his cousin. Thomas Jefferson and the animosity. The animosity begins in the Washington Administration when when Jefferson is Washington's secretary of State It it exists. Swin Jefferson is struggling with Hamilton over Hamilton's financial program. Jefferson is very skeptical of it He he is skeptical of it. On the merits he also thinks unconstitutional. They have such thing as a bank of the United States Hamilton argues brilliantly. That this is an implied power under the constitution and the reasoning that Marshall Himself Will Echo in eighteen nineteen when he decides McCall versus Maryland which relates to the second bank the United States. But what really turned him against his cousin is Jeffersons attitude to the French Revolution Like the other members of Jefferson's party Jefferson believes this isn't on alloyed. Good thing he never turned against the French Revolution. Even through the reign of terror. The only point at which he finally abandoned says faith and that is what Napoleon takes over but for that first decade of the French revolution from seventeen eighty nine To to the end of the century Jefferson Madison his Bernie. They are all in for the French revolution and they seem to Marshall to be as patriotic towards France as they are towards the United States. If not more so and this is Tha Marshall Unacceptable He believes that the Jefferson is lacking in proper patriotism. Any also feels he's been disloyal secretary of state president want because although he terry's out Washington's neutrality policy officially he's also trying to undermine on the side and These are unforgivable offensive to Marshall. Both because he's a patriot and kneels during the revolution and he is such an admire of Washington so after the seventeen ninety four him. Thomas Jefferson is permanently in his in his black letcher. There is no possibility that Jefferson can ever come back for him. So those were the you know. Those are the personal relationships that I Ramified through Marshall's life now the other the other structural decision I made I mean writing a biography is. There's something very easy about it because they all have a similar shape. I mean there's a person who's born and then he does stuff and he dies right the structure you don't you don't get away from it. But the the one modification for this particular book is that in Marshall's most important career which is chief justice. This is the last More than a third of his life thirty four years from eighteen eighteen thirty five where he is chief justice that careers memorable largely because of a number of landmark decisions that he hands out and that his court agrees with so these cases are very important and each one of them. I realized is a short story They only come to the Supreme Court at the end of their course. That's when they've you know who the parties have been fighting about. Whatever it is they go to court. It comes through the lower courts finally at arrives at the Supreme Court and the Marshall Court decides what it decides bad and the justices are interested in that they are interested in the arguments that are presented to them. Now of course there's also politics swirling around a Lotta these cases. They're also aware of that but they come in at the climax.

John Marshall Washington Thomas Jefferson Supreme Court Alexander Hamilton George Washington Marshall Scholarship Marshall Court United States James Wilson Eiser Richard Richard Brooke Jefferson Madison Washington Administration James Wilson Institute Garrett Congress