6 Burst results for "Joel Richard Paul"

"joel richard paul" Discussed on KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz

KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz

07:12 min | 2 years ago

"joel richard paul" Discussed on KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz

"Trump I yield back with that vote the house of representatives has impeached president Donald John trump making him the third president to be impeached in American history it also marks the first time the house has a pitch to Republican president at the first focus on an article of impeachment charging trump with abuse of power the house later voted on the second article of impeachment obstruction of Congress the house heard lengthy debate before votes on the floor Democrat house speaker Nancy C. to one democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi of California cave in opening statement supporting impeachment and that's Christopher Martinez reporting gill Richard Paul is a professor of constitutional and international law at the Hastings school of law in San Francisco and his most recent book without precedent Chief Justice John Marshall and his times is about the most influential Chief Justice in the history of the United States Supreme Court Paul took an historical approach in commenting on today's historical session of the house of representatives historians in the future I could have a very difficult time trying to encapsulate and explain what has transpired in the trump presidency it is very difficult to understand how does one man has so corrupted publican party so that they we now have these Republicans standing up and essentially pending what is clearly a Russian propaganda line that accuses Ukraine of interfering in our elections in twenty sixteen and accuses the Titans of something which we know they didn't do and so it it just it gets hurt it's a strange moment I think and a difficult one to I understand and I think years from now we'll look back and scratch our heads and just wonder how the hell that happened it's just hard for me to I understand that based on a on the facts themselves how you can defend the president's actions I I the the argument that the Republicans seem to be making repeatedly in use today what is that no crime was committed but that's not the standard never has been the standard impeachment going back to the very first impeachment the impeachment of John Pickering who is a judge in New Hampshire back in eighteen oh four he was impeached for drunk at this and then Samuel chase who was a justice of the Supreme Court was impeached and he was impeached for essentially being too partisan on the court so it's never been the standard that you had to have committed a crime manager Johnson was impeached he didn't commit a crime he fathered wanted a cabinet secretaries and that was the grounds for impeachment so I I don't know how you can defend this when the fever subside and we we see that in fact all of the witnesses have lined up the same way the White House has produced no exculpatory evidence there's been no effort by the Republicans to explain what the motivation was for withholding the eight in the first place or why the president suddenly released the eight other than the fact that his his corrupt bargain was exposed by a whistle blower so I don't know how else can come out hello this claim that this is an illegitimate impeachment even then we've heard it constantly today in the debate from the house floor but even Donald Trump yesterday and his six page letter to Nancy Pelosi said it was unconstitutional and illegal is is there anything about the process that you seen that would at least give some some some concern to an impartial observer was concerned about how the constitution works right on well in terms of the process claims made by the Republicans it's quite standard in any criminal investigation that initially you begin by taking depositions in secret because you don't want perspective witnesses coordinating their testimony so that's what happened in the first stage in terms of the indeed occasions by the intelligence committee and then in the second stage of any investigation we typically have a grand jury in which the defendant does not participate in the grand jury proceeding Saint Pete that's what happened in this case with the intelligence committee began calling witnesses publicly Republicans and Democrats had equal time in both of those first two phases is the third phase when it went to the Judiciary Committee the president and his attorneys were invited to come they were invited to participate they chose not to participate so the procedural objections to the Republicans keep raising don't really make any sense that this is all very standard kinds of ways in which legal investigations are conducted I think what is significant to me is the unwillingness of the Republicans to allow witnesses to participate in the trial I don't know what I don't know what a trial is if it is an attempt at trying to substantiate fax if you don't have to wait if you don't have evidence presented then what is the trial going to be about if it's simply going to be a book of folk between you know shirts and skins we don't need to have a trial and that I guess is the impetus now for the suggestion that the Democrats might not allow the that they might not allow the impeachment to go forward to the Senate they may simply stop with impeachment and not go through this farce of the trial Joel Richard Paul professor of constitutional law at Hastings school of law in San Francisco talking image Jesuit co host of caveat is live coverage of today's house vote to impeach president trump on two counts in your listening to the evening news on KPFA Berkeley KPFK Los Angeles KFC of Fresno online at KPFA dot org tens of thousands of people took part in an estimated six hundred rallies across the country last night supporting president trump's impeachment including hundreds in San Francisco wait in line and we need elections national security and we this kind of collection the running country finally brought up these articles of impeachment it's a problem that the basis they bought these articles up on.

Donald John trump president
"joel richard paul" Discussed on WHAS 840 AM

WHAS 840 AM

07:33 min | 3 years ago

"joel richard paul" Discussed on WHAS 840 AM

"No, member of America's founding generation has had a more lasting impact on the constitution. The supreme court and the country itself. Then John Marshall he began his public service in seventeen seventy five as a nineteen year old in the continental army was at Valley Forge with George Washington later as an adult he represented, the new Republic as Bassett or to France and secretary of state under John Adams who eventually nominated him as the nation's fourth chief Justice of the United States, the book without precedent. Chief Justice, John Marshall, and his times is a fascinating and engaging narrative in which Joel Richard Paul brings us overlooked titan of American history to vivid life, Joel Richard policy with us on the phone. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much. So what drew you to the subject of chief Justice, John Marshall? Well, I've taught constitutional law office thirty years, of course, Jon Marshall's name keeps popping up. I wanted to learn more about this, man. And what I tried to do in. My book was to really give a more balanced portrait of the man because you know, it's true that for thirty four years as chief Justice, he had an enormous impact on the way in which our constitution is interpreted and the development of our legal system. But just as importantly, he was a he was a major shakier in the revolutionary war. He was a significant diplomat. He was a leader in congress. He was a pivotal figure in the ratification debates in Virginia that ratified the US constitution, and he was secretary of state, and I wanted to fit all of that into one book. Wow. And it is a lot. It's it's a very compelling story of this amazing, man. Tell us about his rivalry with Thomas Jefferson and its impact on history. Yeah. Thomas Jefferson was his his first cousin on and like a lot of I. Second cousin rather than like a lot of second cousins. You know, there are sometimes bitter family feuds in this instance, Jefferson's families wells, really came from money that they inherited which otherwise would have gone to Marshall's grandmother. So Jefferson live Kentucky, Ohio, speak plantation with five hundred slaves. Great wealth and privilege Marshall by contrast grew up in poverty on a two room. Log cabin on the frontier of Virginia close to the Kentucky border. He with his fifteen brothers and sisters crowded into two rooms, he had no formal education apart from single year of grammar school, and yet he rose to enormous prominence. He ends up marrying the daughter of the woman who Jefferson I fell in love with. So she rejected Jefferson's proposal of marriage. And then her daughter turns around and marries Marsh. You can imagine how Jefferson felt about that. And politically they had a rivalry which resulted from the fact that Jefferson was the leader of what was then called the Republican party later, the democrat Republican party, he believed in states' rights, and he believed in protecting the institution of slavery Marshall by contrast was the leader of the federalist party that all in a strong national government, national defense opposed slavery. And so they were political rivals as well as familial rivals. What was this the rivalry? What was its impact on American history? Which impact in American history was significant because basically the whole case of Marbury versus Madison. Is really a reaction that to the threat that Jefferson poses to the supreme court Jefferson wanted to make the supreme court subordinate to the president. He wanted the authority to be able to hire and fire justices. He sent out to impeach Marshall. And the other federalist judges on the supreme court martial wanted to defend independence. So in the case of Marbury versus Madison, which Marshall actually engineer. He actually that case was a setup a martial setup that case. So that he could established two important principles. First. That the court is is is independent and has the authority to strike down laws that are passed by congress, contrary to the constitution is unconstitutional and second that the court has the authority to review the powers of the executive branch. And that is just as important as the ability to strike down laws it's unconstitutional, and and and those two principles together established the supreme court as a Coequal branch of the federal government. Wow. That's really interesting. And what can you speculate? I wonder on what would be Marshall's relationship for what he would be like on the supreme court of today. Well, I think that Marshall would be very disappointed with a number of decisions that are decided five four a court today. I think he felt that. Important for the court to find consensus in Marshall's thirty four years on the court longer than any other chief Justice he participated in more than eleven hundred opinions and of those decisions more than half of them. He wrote the opinions and self and all but thirty six of his opinions were unanimous decisions. That's a remarkable record, especially given the fact that every Justice who was appointed to the supreme court after Marshall was appointed by a jeffersonian that is a Republican president who oppose Marshall's jurisprudence. So they all sought to overturn Marshall jurisprudence and through his intellect and his personality he managed to seduce all of the other members of the court to help them sort of like find common ground at forty consensus. That's the kind of leadership that I think is missing on the court today and is missing in our country today. And it's just so important. I think to get us back to who we are as people exactly the supreme court. Justice appointments have become outrageously political in a funny way Marshall contributed to that. Right. Because before Marshall the supreme court did not have much authority in the case of Marbury versus Madison, James Madison. The secretary of state doesn't even bother a carry in court because he didn't really regard the court as having any authority over him. The the court has a thirty today because of John Marshall. And so every recent supreme court nomination has become controversial because of the enormous power. The court has an all of that is due to Marshall's influence the book is now out in paperback. Right. It's out in paperback. It's a, you know, I I really want to emphasize that. I I wrote the book for for a general audience. I didn't write the book for lawyers. I it's it's not a book about law cases. It's about a wonderful romantic story between Marshall and his and his wife. Polly the story of growing up during. The American revolution. The first sixty years of our Republic, and I hope to give people a really kind of kaleidoscopic a few of how the country developed in our politics, and our on our legal and political system came to be what it is today. And that's why it's so readable. And it's called without precedent. Chief Justice, John Marshall and his times by Joel Richard Paul. Thank you, sir. Thank you, so much pleasure..

John Marshall Thomas Jefferson supreme court Marbury Joel Richard Paul Madison congress United States Virginia John Adams America Republican party Joel Richard George Washington France president
"joel richard paul" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

03:46 min | 3 years ago

"joel richard paul" Discussed on KQED Radio

"And then at seven o'clock on fresh air. Jason resign is the cast. He was accused of being a spy while reporting in Iran. The title of his memoir is prisoner. And I hope you'll stay with us for fresh air coming up at seven here on San Francisco in K north highlands, Sacramento. This is marketplace, I'm KAI Ryssdal. Not great news for Google at a French yesterday. The search company that's really an advertising data company has been hit with a fifty seven million dollar fine for failing to be transparent about privacy guidelines. It's the first time an individual European Union country has invoked the general data protection regulation. If you remember that went into effect last year. Anyway in absolute terms, fifty seven million dollars is a boatload of money for Google though. Fifty seven million dollars is a vanishingly small fraction of a boatload. So marketplace's looked into what kind of find might actually get a company like that to pay attention for a bit of perspective. Let's say you earn an annual salary of fifty thousand dollars. The find Google has been asked to pay is the equivalent of twenty five bucks, Google that kind of change in the laundry every month and often is a professor of media studies at the university of Virginia and is author of books that have been critical of Google and Facebook, he says a couple of things need to happen to make these punishments. More effective one defined should be in the billions and millions. But beyond that, we really need a regulatory structure that takes the problems of the abuse of personal data. Seriously, biting off and says part of the problem is that it's not just Google and Facebook whose businesses stand to lose from stricter data regulation, AT and T rising and Comcast are all in the same boat. Their business models are also based on obtaining in selling your data. So all of those companies Google included have an interest in making sure regulations don't adversely affect their bottom lines. Joel Richard Paul teaches law at the university of California Hastings in San Francisco. He says these companies make so much money from user data that until fines get high enough. They're unlikely to have an incentive to to change that business model, but he says there's another factor at play even when a fine is relatively small. That's really the reputational damage. Paul says this European fine could act as a signal to consumers that what these company. These are doing isn't good and Google Facebook. And others are more worried about losing users and their data than they are about fines. I need for marketplace. A quick follow up now to our story last week about mobile payments in the Chinese economy. Some of you had a hard time believing something that are Shanghai. Correspondent Jennifer packs it here's the bottom talking about mobile payment has exploded in China way. More than in the US Americans use mobile payment for more than one hundred billion dollars worth of transactions in two thousand sixteen but that same year in China. We're talking about twenty three trillion dollars your objections went like this. Basically China's GDP that year two thousand sixteen wasn't even twelve trillion dollars. How can mobile payments be nearly twice that not only can they can they it turns out we actually under reported the dollar amount of mobile transactions in China in two thousand sixteen Jennifer has the explanation at marketplace dot ORG coming up tomorrow on the marketplace morning report, by the way, how about a little taste of global. Economic elitism with your morning coffee. How about that the World Economic Forum in Davos is on? Last friday. The.

Google Joel Richard Paul San Francisco Facebook China KAI Ryssdal European Union Iran Jason Jennifer Shanghai Sacramento US Comcast AT university of California Hasti professor university of Virginia
"joel richard paul" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

03:48 min | 3 years ago

"joel richard paul" Discussed on KQED Radio

"And then at four thirty on all things considered Senator KOMO Harris is running for president as a progressive. But she carries political baggage from her time as California's attorney general a report on here is his back story is coming up in the first segment of all things considered. The program starts at four thirty here on kqed public radio. This is marketplace, I'm KAI Ryssdal. Not great news for Google at a French yesterday. The search company that's really an advertising and data company has been hit with a fifty seven million dollar fine for failing to be transparent about privacy guidelines. It's the first time an individual European Union country is invoked the general data protection regulation. The GDP are in my remember remember them that went into effect last year. I guess it's one right singular regulation anyway. In absolute terms. Fifty seven million dollars is a boatload of money for Google though. Fifty seven million dollars is a vanishingly small fraction of a boatload. So marketplace's into your looked into what kind of fine might actually get a company like that to pay attention for a bit of perspective. Let's say you earn an annual salary of fifty thousand dollars. The find Google has been asked to pay is the equivalent of twenty five bucks. Google. Change in the laundry every month. Often is a professor of media studies at the university of Virginia and is author of books that have been critical of Google and Facebook, he says a couple of things need to happen to make these punishments more effective one defined should be in the billions and not the millions. But beyond that, we really need a regulatory structure that takes the problems of the abuse of personal data. Seriously, biting off and says part of the problem is that it's not just Google and Facebook whose businesses stand to lose from stricter data regulation, AT and T Verizon and Comcast are all in the same boat. Their business models are also based on obtaining in selling your data. So all of those companies Google included have an interest in making sure regulations don't adversely affect their bottom lines. Joel Richard Paul teaches law at the university of California Hastings in San Francisco. He says these companies make so much money from user data that until fines get high enough. They're unlikely to have an incentive to to change the business model, but he says there's enough. Another factor at play even when a fine is relatively small. That's really the reputational damage. Paul says this European fine could act as a signal to consumers that these companies are doing isn't good and Google Facebook and others are more worried about losing users and their data than they are about fines. I mean dealer for marketplace. A quick follow up now to our story last week about mobile payments in the Chinese economy. Some of you had a hard time believing something that are Shanghai. Correspondent Jennifer pack said here's the bottom talking about mobile payment has exploded in China way. More than in the US Americans use mobile payment for more than one hundred billion dollars worth of transactions in two thousand sixteen but that same year in China. We're talking about twenty three trillion dollars your objections went like this. Basically, China's GDP that your two thousand sixteen wasn't even twelve trillion dollars. How can mobile payments be nearly twice that not only can they can they it turns out we actually under reported the dollar amount of mobile transactions in China in two thousand sixteen Jennifer has the explanation at marketplace dot ORG coming up tomorrow on the marketplace morning report, by the way, how about a little taste of global economic elitism with your morning coffee. How about that the World Economic Forum in Davos is on? Last friday. The White House.

Google Joel Richard Paul Facebook Senator KOMO Harris KAI Ryssdal China California kqed European Union president Jennifer pack attorney Shanghai US White House San Francisco university of California Hasti AT
"joel richard paul" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

04:06 min | 3 years ago

"joel richard paul" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"All of it on WNYC the daily lives. So at the intersection of culture, and the culture on the next all of it top chef runner-up, Shirley Chung the Beijing. Born chef and restaurant row has a new cookbook out celebrating Chinese heritage cooking. Plus Stephanie land on her new memoir made artwork. Low pay the mothers will to survive all of it. Weekdays at noon on WNYC. You're listening to marketplace on WNYC coming up next. It's all things considered on day. Thirty two of the government shutdown complete update and much more of the day's news coming up next right here on WNYC. This is marketplace, I'm KAI Ryssdal. Not great news for Google at a French yesterday. The search company that's really an advertising and data company has been hit with a fifty seven million dollar fine for failing to be transparent about privacy guidelines. It's the first time an individual European Union country has invoked the general data protection regulation. If you remember that went into effect last year. Anyway in absolute terms, fifty seven million dollars is a boatload of money for Google though. Fifty seven million dollars is a vanishingly small fraction of a boatload. So marketplace's you looked into what kind of fine might actually get a company like that to pay attention for a bit of perspective. Let's say you earn an annual salary of fifty thousand dollars fine. Google has been asked to pay is the equivalent of twenty five bucks Google that kind of in the laundry every month. See dividing often is a professor of media studies at the university of Virginia and is author of books that have been critical of Google and Facebook, he says a couple of things need to happen to make these punishments more effective one defined should be in the billions and not the millions. But beyond that, we really need a regulatory structure that takes the problems of the abuse of personal data. Seriously, fighting often says part of the problem is that it's not just Google and Facebook whose businesses stand to lose from stricter data regulation, AT and T Verizon and Comcast all in the same boat. Their business models are also based on obtaining in selling your data. So all of those companies Google included have an interest in making sure regulations don't adversely affect their bottom lines. Joel Richard Paul teaches law at the university of California Hastings in San Francisco. He says these companies make so much money from user data that until fines get high enough. They're unlikely to have an incentive to to change that business model, but he says there's enough. Another factor. Play even when a fine is relatively small. That's really the reputational damage. Paul says this European fine could act as a signal to consumers that what these companies are doing isn't good and Google Facebook and others are more worried about losing users and their data than they are about fines. I mean dealer for marketplace. A quick follow up now to our story last week about mobile payments in the Chinese economy. Some of you had a hard time believing something that are Shanghai. Correspondent Jennifer packs, it here's the bottom talking about mobile payment has exploded in China way, more than in the US Americans use mobile payment for more than one hundred billion dollars worth of transactions in two thousand sixteen but that senior in China, we're talking about twenty three trillion dollars your objections went like this. Basically, China's GDP that your two thousand sixteen wasn't even twelve trillion dollars. How can mobile payments be nearly twice that not only can they can they it turns out we actually under reported the dollar amount of mobile transactions. In China in two thousand sixteen Jennifer has the explanation at marketplace dot ORG coming up tomorrow on the marketplace morning report, by the way, how about a little taste of global economic elitism with your morning coffee. How about that the World Economic Forum in Davos is on? Last friday. The White House announced.

Google WNYC Facebook Joel Richard Paul China Jennifer packs Shirley Chung KAI Ryssdal Beijing Stephanie land European Union Shanghai White House US San Francisco university of California Hasti professor AT
"joel richard paul" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

05:54 min | 3 years ago

"joel richard paul" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"Coming up people entering the workforce has a real personal cost. That's never measured in any of the reports when the costs of unemployment do get kind of personal, but I sure students. Honestly, I did the down off three hundred one points today. One point two percent. Twenty four thousand four four four fifty one point blue chips. Nasdaq one hundred thirty six points one point nine percent, seventy twenty seven thousand twenty s and p five hundred thirty seven points about one point four percent twenty six and thirty two they're Haliburton. Trump three percent today. The oilfield services company beat analysts expectations in the fourth quarter. Also lowered first quarter revenue in some key areas, including because of the way reduced fuel demand from China slumber J off point seven percent helmerich and Payne drill down three and nine tenths percent healthcare. Jan Johnson and Johnson gave back one point four percent. They bond prices. Thanks for asking. They rose yield on the ten year treasury note fell two point seven three percent. You're listening to marketplace. As a nonprofit news organization. Marketplace has a mission that drives what we do every day to increase economic intelligence across the country. But we can't do it alone. So please become. Marketplace investor today in whatever amount you choose and your donation will go twice as far thanks to a dollar for dollar match from the Kenedy fund. Please donate today and marketplace dot org. Place podcast is brought to you by with Sabi. Hot cloud storage. If your company's thinking about moving data storage to the cloud, check out the company. That's rethinking cloud storage with Sabi is less expensive than just the maintenance on your current on premise storage. Plus, it's eighty percent cheaper and six times faster than Amazon S three with no egress fees. Experience. It for yourself with free unlimited storage for a month. Go to Asaba dot com. Click free trial and use the offer code was ambi-. And by zoom. Videoconferencing has changed the way we do business. Fewer long distance trips and more FaceTime at the click of a mouse. And in two thousand nineteen the clear winner is ADM zoom delivers flawless video pin drop clear audio and instant sharing across any device, desktop laptop, tablet or mobile share anything with anyone a word file spreadsheet presentation deck zoom is everything you always wanted video communication to be some amazing features. You didn't think of but you'll wonder how you lived. Without him. Visit zoom dot US to set up your free account today that zoom dot US meet happy with zoom video communications. This is marketplace, I'm KAI Ryssdal. Not great news for Google at a French yesterday. The search company that trillion advertising data company has been hit with a fifty seven million dollar fine for failing to be transparent about privacy guidelines. It's the first time an individual European Union country has invoked the general data protection regulation. If you remember that went into effect last year. Anyway in absolute terms, fifty seven million dollars is a boatload of money for Google though. Fifty seven million dollars is a vanishingly small fraction of a boatload. So marketplace's into you looked into what kind of find might actually get a company like that to pay attention for a bit of perspective. Let's say you earn an annual salary of fifty thousand dollars the find Google's monastic pay is the equivalent of twenty five bucks Google canes in the laundry every month. See the vitamin often is a professor of media studies at the university. Virginia and is author of books that have been critical of Google and Facebook, he says a couple of things need to happen to make these punishments more effective defined should be in the billions and not the millions. But beyond that, we really need a regulatory structure that takes the problems of the abuse of personal data. Seriously, biting often says part of the problem is that it's not just Google and Facebook whose businesses stand to lose from stricter data regulation, AT and T Verizon and Comcast all in the same boat. Their business models are also based on obtaining in selling your data. So all of those companies Google included have an interest in making sure regulations don't adversely affect their bottom lines. Joel Richard Paul teaches law at the university of California Hastings in San Francisco. He says these companies make so much money from user data that until fines get high enough. They're unlikely to have an incentive to to change that business model, but he says there's another factor play. Even when a fine is relatively small. That's really the reputational damage. Pulses this European fine could act as a signal to consumers that what these companies are doing isn't good and Google Facebook and others are more worried about losing users and their data than they are about fines. I mean Euler from Arkham place a quick follow up now to our story last week about mobile payments in the Chinese economy. Some of you had a hard time believing something that are Shanghai. Correspondent Jennifer packs it here's a bar talking about mobile payment has exploded in China way. More than in the US Americans use mobile payment for more than one hundred billion dollars worth of transactions in two thousand sixteen but that same year in China. We're talking about twenty three trillion dollars your objections went like this. Basically China's GDP that year two thousand sixteen wasn't even twelve trillion dollars. How can mobile payments being early twice that not only can they can they turns out we actually under reported the dollar amount of mobile transactions in China in two thousand sixteen Jennifer has the explanation. At marketplace dot ORG coming up tomorrow on the marketplace morning report, by the way, how about a little taste of global economic elitism with your morning coffee. How about that the World Economic Forum in Davos is on? Last

Google China Facebook Sabi Jan Johnson KAI Ryssdal Haliburton US European Union Kenedy fund Jennifer FaceTime Virginia Joel Richard Paul Amazon