17 Burst results for "Professor Amar"

"professor amar" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

07:26 min | 2 months ago

"professor amar" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"And many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. Let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people. Help stick together because they believe in the rule of water. Good evening and welcome to landmark cases. Tonight's case is Gideon versus Wainwright. 55 years ago this month, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel was so fundamental to our governmental system that states must provide lawyers for defendants who cannot afford one. The hero of tonight's story is a bit of an unlikely one. Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter in Florida who Mr Gideon and the Florida judge who sent him to jail. They re enacted the case for CBS News documentary in 1965. Let's watch The next case on the docket is the case. The state of Florida versus Clarence Earl Gideon. What? Says the state? Are you ready for trial? The state is ready, Your Honor. What says the defendant? Are you ready for trial? I'm not ready, Your Honor. Did you plead not guilty to this charge by reason of insanity? No, sir. Well, why aren't you ready? Have no council. Why do you not? Health Council? You know that your kids was set for trial today? Yes, sir. I know that my case we set for trial with that. Why? Then? Did you not secure council and be prepared to go to trial? Your honor, requests this court upon counsel to represent me in this trial, Mr Gideon. I'm sorry, but I can't appoint counsel to represent you. In this case under the laws of the state of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel To represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I'm sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint counsel to defend you. In this case, the United States Supreme Court says are entitled to be represented by counsel and let me introduce you to two guests who are at our table tonight. They returned to us from season one of landmark cases. Paul Clement, former U. S solicitor general under President George W. Bush, 2000 and 4 to 2000 and eight is now a lawyer in price. That practice in Washington, D. C at Kirkland and Ellis. He has the distinction of arguing more cases before the Supreme Court 85 times than anyone in private practice. Thanks for being with us. Akil Reed Amar also returns to the table tonight. Glad to have you back Professor Amar. He's a law professor at Yale and a visiting law professor at the University of Pennsylvania is the author of numerous books on Constitutional Law. His latest is called the Constitution today Timeless Lessons for the issues of our Era. So Professor Amar Is was Mr Gideon at the time, He said that correct. Did the Constitution guarantee him a right to counsel and he said the Supreme Court has said it and the Supreme Court hadn't said that it would in the case that he would eventually help yet to the Supreme Court, which is what we'll talk about this evening, but the Supreme Court had said Before is that federal defendants being prosecuted for federal crimes in federal court could have appointed counsel But the court the case that people may not have heard of. It's called Johnson versus usurps to 1938. But the court had never quite said that that was true for all non capital case is being non death penalty cases being tried in every state court. Mr Gideon had that notion because of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution would Says. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense Paul Clement. He also turned to the 14th amendment because he was really quite a student of the Constitution, which says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty, which he was about to be deprived of our property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its story. Respect from the equal protection of the law. So why did that entitle him to a lawyer? Well, it that that again is the question that the Supreme Court would eventually decide. But I think that Mr Gideon was actually quite right to focus on the due process clause, in addition to the Sixth Amendment, because one problem that he had is that the Sixth Amendment by its terms Applies only to the federal government. It constrains the federal government, not the state governments. But the 14th amendment, and it's due process clause directly constrains the states. And so that's why he was quite right to point to. The due process clause as ultimately being the basis for white Florida, as opposed to the United States government by Florida had to give him a lawyer. So on Facebook tonight are solid criticism from someone who says liberal case another, these fans picking a liberal case tonight. Is there something about this case that both liberals and conservatives can find to like? Let me start with conservatives? Well, you know, I don't think of Gideon as being a left right case. And as you say, I think there are things For everybody about this case, But I think particularly from a conservative, the idea that when somebody is facing the awesome power of the government, and the awesome power of the government is about to take away their life or their liberty. I mean to be able to have the assistance of counsel and make that guarantee real. I think it's something that conservatives and I would think liberals. Would would value as a as a cherished right killam are so in the era since the Warren Court was very interesting. It's basically been a court in my entire adult lifetime, where Democrat appointees have not been a majority on the court since 1970. And so it's been a rank of Burger Court, A Rehnquist court Roberts court Republican chief Justice is appointed by Republican presence with a majority of members being Republican Party members and the court might not like everything. Modern Court mint like everything the Warren Court did. But Gideon is absolutely bedrock across the board, 90 and and and other things aren't for example, the exclusionary rule which comes out Applied against the states about the same time will conservatives don't like that, and I might be with him on that. But we all believe left right and center in this bedrock right to have a lawyer. It's the right to have rights. Because if you don't have a lawyer, you really can't defend any of your otherwise. And and even from a conservative point of view, if you're going to put people in prison because you actually believe in law and order, you want to put people in prison who actually did it who are guilty and that legitimizes the whole system is that you actually Who have lawyers who can put the government to its proof to to prove that these folks really are guilty of something rather than guilty of simply being too poor to, uh, hire a lawyer, and I think one of the great champions of the Sixth Amendment in recent years has been Justice Scalia. So I think that just underscores. This is not a left right issue. This is a case of some interesting and some big characters..

Clarence Earl Gideon Paul Clement Florida 1965 Amar Republican Party Gideon 2000 United States Supreme Court Akil Reed Amar United States 1938 85 times Wainwright two guests CBS News Washington, D. C Warren Court 55 years ago today
"professor amar" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

06:52 min | 4 months ago

"professor amar" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"There is no guarantee as we talked about before. But let me say one thing about america compared to row which is that. I win was a republic before became an empire. It wasn't that socio economically diverse. They were basically people in small. Who who who. Who ruled rome itself. So it didn't have when it basically conquers the world. It becomes an an empire but even rome for all his glory. And americans are emulating the romans. That's why we call it. The senate washington dc and you see a lot of classical architecture and the the the age limits twenty five thirty thirty five are actually loosely modelled on a roman called a course of honor. So of course they're thinking very much about the even the very word republic race puplic is latin for the people's thing but here's one thing that america does that romans never do americans beginning in seventeen seventy five for the first time in the world. Start to seriously talk about ending slavery. Not just freeing slaves the The ancient a slave has has existed for most of the world In most places that's not unique to america doesn't begin in sixteen nineteen most places for most of human history have had forms of unfreedom and there were ideas about freeing individual slaves. If you're inclined to the serious think ben hur which is about you know charlton heston of being enslaved and becoming free. Or if you're inclined to comedy. Think a funny thing happened on the way to the forum with zero mastel this conniving slave trying to engineer his own freedom so there is the idea of emancipation individuals as being freed. It's you can see it in the old and the new testament but only americans in seventeen seventy five originate this amazing revolution idea of ending slavery. That's an idea that for the first time. A society to end slavery forms in philadelphia. In seventeen seventy five and Presence will be ben. Franklin who signs the declaration of independence the next year and benjamin rush who signs the declaration of independence and by seventeen eighty pennsylvania will have adopted a constitution that phases slavery out altogether. Not just frank sleighs but ending slavery and and you're from boston and the massachusetts constitution seventeen. Eighty says all people are born free and equal and by seventeen eighty three. The massachusetts supreme judicial court says that means that slavery has to end in math is hereby ended in massachusetts and new hampshire does the same thing and it's going to be followed by connecticut and rhode island and eventually new jersey and new york so so. That's something that the romans never did that. The americans began and begin early on. Okay but point taken about the state level abolishment of slavery in this country. But you know when you say. Seventeen seventy five. It was ninety more years until the sin of slavery was abolished from the nation. At an it had to come through a civil war and so i wonder though the very example that you give professor amar. Does it not show how you know. We learn about the constitution as this great documents. That in that that shows how a nation can come together through compromise but it it has the governing law of the land is also eight compromised document because of its initial allowances for slavery for the disenfranchisement of women. If we wanna expand who the we are in we the people. I mean what you're saying that this actually could have been avoided but it wasn't they chose. They chose the continuation of the enslavement of human beings. Over a greater moral. 'cause that you said was being undertaken beginning to be undertaken in seventeen seventy five. Well put so. Let's talk about the two issues you identify which are two of the three biggest areas of exclusion discussing great length in the book and wine is women. We'll talk about that in just a minute. But let's talk about slavery first. I claim that for all the impressive thing. The founders did. They really made one enormous mistake. Which is going to eventually lead to a civil war and on the almost the the destruction of everything that they that they succeeded in doing. And that's that they failed to put slavery on a path of ultimate extinction and my claim is they could have had a different compromise. It would have been compromised but would have been a better compromise. The constitution at its best borrows from state constitutions that emerged as early as seventeen seventy six. So it's not coming from the mind of james madison's coming from the american experience and the best and on issue. The constitution copies the best state practice written constitutions. That's eleven states. Half bicameral legislatures all the states except pennsylvania and georgia three branches of government judicial review regular elections census which pennsylvania has new york has but the other stones on issue after issue. The constitution follows the best state practice and this was smart. They're listening to the american people. They forget to adopt a bill of rights and immediately in the ratification period. Folks say hey dudes you forgot the rights which we have the state bills of rights and they fix that mistake. The best state constitutions like the pennsylvania. One that i mentioned put slavery on a path of ultimate extinction. It was a compromise. They didn't get rid of it immediately but they basically said we will phase it out and in my view the framers should have done is in effect instead of giving an extra credit to Slave states forever for every slave that you have you get credit in the house of representatives and the electoral college not full credit but still three fifths credit which means that for every slave the kidnapped from africa bring across the atlantic and a hellish middle passage in with bull whips and chains for every person that you do that to. You actually get more vote in the house of representatives and the electoral college and that was horrible and there was an alternative. The alternative would have been okay..

james madison charlton heston new jersey africa new york two issues two eleven states ben. Franklin rhode island philadelphia connecticut Eighty new hampshire next year benjamin rush atlantic ninety more years first time three branches
"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

05:09 min | 8 months ago

"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

"I'm Steve Inskeep, and I'm No well King. Good morning, President. Trump, having been impeached again will face a trial in the Senate. But unlike the first time he won't be in office. So does the Senate actually have the power to try and ex president Here's NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. The Constitution says that after the House of Representatives votes to impeach a president or any other civil officer, the cases sent to the Senate for a trial, which quote shall not extend further than two. Removal from office and disqualification from future office conviction requires a two thirds vote barring Trump from future office after that would require only a majority vote. Scholars disagree about what the founders intended. Professor Michael Gerhardt, author of a book on Impeachment, contends that the text of the impeachment clause is deliberately broad. There's no time limit. Let's set out in the Constitution that cuts off impeachment at some point, But Columbia law professor Philip Bobbitt, also an impeachment expert, counters that the whole idea of impeachment is aimed at removal from office. If you look at the Federalist papers. Getting the person out of office is the object and whether or not to include a disqualification is entirely discretionary. That makes no sense at all. Yeah, law Professor Akil Amar, and you want to give something to get out of jail free card at the end of the administration so they can do anything they like and be immune from the high Court of impeachment. Yes, replies Professor Bob it, citing the case of Richard Nixon as an example. Knowing that he was about to be impeached in the house and convicted in the Senate. Nixon resigned. Why didn't I go ahead impeach him when he resigned? And the answer is they didn't believe that they had the authority to impeach someone who could not be removed, who was no longer as the text requires a civil officer, But other presidents go the other way. In 18 76, For instance, the corrupt Secretary of War William Belknap handed in his resignation just minutes before the house voted to impeach him. But the Senate determined it had the right to try the former Cabinet officer anyway, quote. For acts done as secretary of war, notwithstanding his resignation off, said office. Prior to Trump. Of course, only two presidents were actually impeached and tried in the Senate, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, though neither was convicted and no president has ever before been impeached twice. Yale's professor, Amar argues that illustrates why it's important for the Senate to try Trump and why the founding fathers considered impeachment more than removal, but a mark of dishonor. It's about a marker for history. He's forever dishonored, and that's especially important at the end. Of someone's time in office, because ordinarily, if you do things in an earlier part of your administration, you can pay a price on Election Day. President Trump ultimately did, in fact, pay a price on election Day. But he then said about selling the idea that the election was rigged. That he had not lost but won in a landslide. We will not take it anymore, and that's what this is all about President Trump on January 6 shortly before the insurrection at the capital, We will stop the steel And that, Amar argues, is the ultimate reason to try Trump in the Senate. His incendiary speech, sparking the attack at the Capitol may have been the culminating event. But as the article of impeachment also charges after the election, Trump sought to quote, subvert and obstruct the integrity of the democratic system, including an hour long tape recorded call to the Georgia secretary of state threatening secretary if he did not quote find the votes needed to change the election outcome. It's the big lie lying about the basic facts. The American people voted you out of office Colombia's professor Bob, It agrees that it seems to frustrate the purpose of impeachment if the president can at the last minute. Skate away. But he adds that the Constitution still imposes those limitations. The last triumph of demagogue would be If he had inflamed us so much that we traveled on these limitations to get at him. Ultimately, the Senate itself will determine whether it contrite Trump on impeachment charges. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1993 that whatever rules the Senate adopts for impeachment are not reviewable by the court as long as the Senate follows three requirements specified in the Constitution. That the senators be under oath and affirmation that a two thirds vote is required to convict and that the chief justice presides when the president is tried. Nina Totenberg. NPR NEWS Washington For.

President Trump Senate President Professor Akil Amar Professor Bob it professor Richard Nixon officer Nina Totenberg Secretary Steve Inskeep Professor Michael Gerhardt House of Representatives NPR Philip Bobbitt William Belknap Supreme Court
"professor amar" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

06:28 min | 8 months ago

"professor amar" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Guided by the belief that the arts and humanities are essential to the well being of diverse and democratic societies learn more at melun dot or g'kar. Morning edition from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep, and I'm no well King. Good morning, President. Trump, having been impeached again will face a trial in the Senate. But unlike the first time he won't be in office. So does the Senate actually have the power to try and ex president Here's NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. The Constitution says that after the House of Representatives votes to impeach a president or any other civil officer, the cases sent to the Senate for a trial which quote shall not extend further, then to removal from office and disqualification from future office. Conviction requires a two thirds vote barring Trump from future office after that would require on Lee a majority vote. Scholars disagree about what the founders intended. Professor Michael Gerhardt, author of a book on Impeachment, contends that the text of the impeachment clause is deliberately broad. There's no time limit. Let's set out in the Constitution that cuts off impeachment at some point, But Columbia law professor Philip Bobbitt, also an impeachment expert, counters that the whole idea of impeachment is aimed at removal from office. If you look at the Federalist papers. Getting the person out of office is the object and whether or not to included. His qualification is entirely discretionary. That makes no sense at all. Yale law professor Akil Amar. You want to give something to get out of jail free card at the end of the administration so they can do anything they like and be immune from the high Court of impeachment. Yes, replies Professor Bob it, citing the case of Richard Nixon as an example. Knowing that he was about to be impeached in the house and convicted in the Senate. Nixon resigned. Why didn't I go ahead impeach him when he resigned? And the answer is they didn't believe that they had the authority to impeach someone who could not be removed, who was no longer as the text requires a civil officer, But other presidents go the other way. In 18 76, For instance, the corrupt Secretary of War William Belknap handed in his resignation just minutes before the house voted to impeach him. But the Senate determined it had the right to try the former Cabinet officer anyway, quote. For acts done as Secretary of war, not withstanding his resignation off, said office. Prior to Trump. Of course, only two presidents were actually impeached and tried in the Senate, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, though neither was convicted and no president has ever before been impeached twice. Yale's professor, Amar argues that illustrates why it's important for the Senate to try Trump and why the founding fathers considered impeachment more than removal, but a mark of dishonor. It's about a marker for history. He's forever dishonored, and that's especially important at the end. Of someone's time in office, because ordinarily, if you do things in an earlier part of your administration, you can pay a price on Election Day. President Trump ultimately did, in fact, pay a price on election Day. But he then said about selling the idea that the election was rigged. That he had not lost but won in a landslide. We will not take it anymore, and that's what this is all about President Trump on January 6 shortly before the insurrection at the capital, We will stop the steel And that, Amar argues, is the ultimate reason to try Trump in the Senate. His incendiary speech, sparking the attack at the Capitol may have been the culminating event. But as the article of impeachment also charges after the election, Trump sought to quote, subvert and obstruct the integrity of the democratic system, including an hour long tape recorded call to the Georgia secretary of state threatening the secretary if he did not quote find the votes needed to change the election outcome. It's the big live lying about the basic facts. The American people voted you out of office Colombia's professor Bob, It agrees that it seems to frustrate the purpose of impeachment if the president can at the last minute. Skate away, but he has that the Constitution still imposes those limitations. The last triumph of demagogue would be If he had inflamed us so much that we traveled on these limitations to get at him. Ultimately, the Senate itself will determine whether it contrite Trump on impeachment charges. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1993 that whatever rules the Senate adopts for impeachment are not reviewable by the court as long as the Senate follows three requirements specified in the Constitution. That the senators be under oath and affirmation that a two thirds vote is required to convict and that the chief justice presides when the president is tried. Nina Totenberg. NPR NEWS Washington For the first time in 27 years, The Buffalo Bills are within a game of the Super Bowl. They will play in football's a F C championship game. Yeah, the bills beat the Baltimore Ravens, who didn't score a single touchdown on Sunday. Is the hard loss for Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson, who got a concussion in the second half. Some bills fans wanted to cheer up the Ravens quarterback so they did some research. Jackson played college football in Louisville, Kentucky, where he worked with the charity blessings in a backpack. That organization works with kids whose families don't have enough food, and so they rely on schools. Covered 19 closed the schools, so getting meals to kids is not as simple as it used to be. So the charity has adapted. Our volunteers are the root of our organization. There the heart of our organization and they've gotten creative and we are just determined to feed kids anyway that we possibly can Nikki grizzled works at the nonprofit and says that Lamar Jackson of the Ravens Still volunteers with him. He is just the nicest guy with the biggest heart and buffalo fans are flooding the charity with donations to honor him. Who knew that the Bills mafia? Bills Fan.

President Trump Senate President Trump professor Akil Amar Professor Bob it officer NPR News Nina Totenberg Secretary Ravens Lamar Jackson Steve Inskeep Professor Michael Gerhardt House of Representatives Baltimore Ravens Richard Nixon Bills
"professor amar" Discussed on KNBR The Sports Leader

KNBR The Sports Leader

10:29 min | 1 year ago

"professor amar" Discussed on KNBR The Sports Leader

"Will it show on this special July 3rd holiday edition. And as we draw closer, and I think the flip of the calendar to July, sort of made September feel like it's not too far off college football, there was hope it seems to be dwindling. We'll see where it's out with our guy, Dennis Dodd, CBS Sports Day and It's great to have you. How are you? Mark. I'm sorry. Thanks. Grant me on every fourth everyone. Yeah. Thanks for doing it, You know, right now, all of the sudden, after a couple of months ago, there was this thought of like, Hey, what about pushing it to the spring and no one wanted to do that. But the thought of the time wass For planning purposes if they're going to do that, they needed to make a decision pretty quick. And then here we are a couple months later, and I'm still hearing it, bouncing around the possibility of moving the college football season to the spray. What are your thoughts on that? What's the likelihood? I think it's gone from the last chance to make the only chance now. I mean, you see all the these burgeoning positives topping up all over the place spiking in 30 states. And not. The thing that really makes it hard for college sports is the fact that they are college athletes. They don't have. You know a union to negotiate for them. They can't negotiate the working conditions. They're coming awful close to being human shield the mercenaries now if they're going to put them out there in August. With 40,000 students returning some campuses actually practicing football where they're going head to head and swapping, you know, sweat and being in a room together with this massive outbreak. It's just just not a good look. If nothing else, forget about it being dangerous, which it is. It's not a good look for college athletics right now, uh, way less than two months now before the beginning of the seats. Dennis. It's interesting because I know ah, lot of the dad. I've been reading your articles lately, and and it's certainly It's tough to imagine this all working perfectly, but it seems like a lot of the data and the expert responses. Are based on as you just said 30 40,000 students being on campus. What if they aren't what if it's a hybrid model? What if what if things are online still in terms of classes, but similar to what pro sports air doing? You could just have the teams in their own kind of, you know, special processes. Does that change the thought at all? Well, I think the Cal State system had maybe designed a hybrid model They announced a few weeks ago. They weren't going to help on campus. Um Class is in the San Diego state. Maybe Fresno State is that of a call that there be a hybrid model with both. So many problems with that. I mean, look, you may not have enough teams. You've got division to conference, which is cancelled the Ivy League going to announce Wednesday that they're going to cancel, probably decedent back to spring. That's gonna have a significant impact on okay. What is this about? Money was just about the college experience. Um, there's a Division three conference. It's about the shutdown today. Shut down for two weeks because I had 20 positive So it goes beyond now. Well, no students on campus, no ball. They don't have to worry about that. There may not be any students on campus anywhere. And all online. If this keeps going, because if you can't put in a micro population with football players how he's gonna keep these kids From being infected. When you say 40,000 they're going to go to parties. They're going to go out there gonna have dates. They're going to socialize. You can't keep them inside. They just won't do it. No, Yeah. College students. We know Dennis enough follow, not going to follow the rules. I get that. I also remember Mark Emmert saying. Ah, a number of weeks ago. You know if they aren't on campus if they are online, we're not doing sports and I I wondered not that I want to force it or anything. But I was just curious that the thought process Behind that, like, wouldn't wouldn't that actually provide the sports a safer environment? Where does the stand on that right now? Well, let's get one thing straight. Markham. It's not going to have maybe have no say in this is very little Say in this, he had a bully pulpit. Nothing more. The doesn't sponsor. Championship in major college football, the only sport they don't sponsor a championship in and they basically make prayed, playing practice worlds these enforcement to hand down penalties so they don't have a saying. Those who appreciate guidelines. Just fat Mark guideline there not enforceable. Which means you can't penalize. Somebody doesn't do something. I think the role in this is really sidelined, minimized by their their lack of power, lack of prestige addition would say in college football, he's gonna have to come from those power sides from issues. Dennis Dodd. CBS is with us, Dennis one of your recent articles, I thought had some some really powerful questions in it. Some some powerful responses from from health experts and one of the really questions you got to Was what impact would one death have on the entire sport of college football? How would you answer that question? I think they shut it down. I thought they would shut it down with one hospitalization because the sport is so fragile right now, But the story you're referring to is I called Dr Sheldon Jacobs and his PhD computer science professor Amar, others among other professional ships at the University of Illinois and I have been referred to him by another source, not knowing he'd even say this. It is. We talked. He said that you know it based on my models and you know he goes back. He works on viruses. This is a guy who basically invented creature. That security thing we go to the airport is pretty small. You know, using the figure of 13,000 football players, which there are there will be 3 to 7 deaths. That thing goes through its scheduled well, wait a minute 3 to 7 deaths because that that that's what the numbers say. Even with No, you obviously young people are less susceptible. The hospitalization to dying even don't know the numbers go up. Any said that's just because it's a risk reward thing is going to become how much risk you adore to do this and he said, I don't want there anyone but those are the numbers. And those two my mother who said you've got to get somebody else to say this and I did. I reached out and back it up with an infectious disease. Doctor from the Michael say is great. I was Everyone look online for him to get some great stuff on this. He said. Yeah, the number's figure that guy's right. So going back to your original question. Yeah, I think they shut it down with one hospitalizations. Bad things are now never mind. Did you know? I don't know when it would come back. Yeah, Yeah, well and speaking of risk taking, I mean, this is one thing that I know that the players for the most part, not all of them. You can't speak for anyone or everyone. But I know that football is a risk taking sport and it's not as if there haven't been Deaths before in the process of playing. This is very different, but I wonder how you'd answer that. Like if somebody said, Well, wait a minute. This these air risk takers by nature. They are they are putting their bodies on the line. Every day. How does this conversation compare with that? That's true, but you can't catch head trauma. A knee injury isn't 13 times more contagious than the flu. It knowingly putting people in harm's way. And look yes, that head trauma thing. The injury, saying it is well known and the NSA and some schools paid dearly for that for not being more, You know, knowledgeable of that. But I don't think you can compare a worldwide pandemic to an injury. And yes, I don't want to play. They had been told by the schools. If you wanna play, we're going onto your scholarships. We're not going to hold you accountable for any of that. So they've said the right thing. Basically, that said Bill was introduced into Congress this week by a couple of senators who are prohibiting try to prohibit the school's from having these players signed waivers. Which makes them sign sound like toys, which there and to guarantee their scholarships. Um, you know if they don't want to play, so that's a thing that's got some legal ramifications. Odd, Iowa Indiana, Ohio State's and others. Are having a players signed these legally sketching gray area waivers or pledges that say, If you do go to a bar, you act out and weaken separates you from the team. So that's the deal, too. Touchy subject here, Dennis, but I wonder what your thoughts are on it. No one would ever say this publicly because they'd get fired. But do you think in the in the back room hallways there are coaches and staffs that privately. Kind of want their players to get it now and get it over with. I do think there's that mindset. Not that they want them to get it. I would never say that. But that they have this day medical idea this herd of unity and I addressed that in one of my stores where I talked to a couple of doctors. I know Is that a thing that is what everybody gets. Policy of our administration without them, saying it in my opinion, but that being said the herd immunity sending everybody gets it, so there are a lot of problems with that. We don't even know if you can get this again. So if you go out and knowingly allow athletes to be exposed, you might kill him. Starters. Um, we don't even.

football Dennis Dodd Mark Emmert CBS Ivy League NSA Fresno San Diego Markham University of Illinois Dr Sheldon Jacobs Michael Bill professor Amar Congress Iowa Indiana
"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

04:23 min | 2 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

"They write Lee negative and horrible and false articles we can sue them and went to lots of money that was at a fort worth Texas rally in twenty sixteen as a private citizen he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sue his media critics trump has been particularly solicitous of justice Thomas and his wife Ginny who was a vocal conservative activist the Thomases dined with the trumps at the White House this year soon after Jenny Thomas led a group of fellow social conservatives in a one hour meeting with trump the trunk Thomas relationship may have been responsible for retirement rumors fueled by some conservatives who apparently wanted the seventy one year old Thomas to step down so the trump could replace him with the younger conservative able to serve for thirty or forty more years if that was the plan it didn't work as Thomas made clear during an interview at Pepperdine University as well let's fast forward to twenty years from now at your retirement party I'm not gonna argue the twin to twin of it I'm not retired twenty years early years after each of Thomas is twenty eight years on the court analysts have offered different theories about his juris prudence Brooklyn College professor Corey robin has a book coming out this fall contending that Thomases over riding legal philosophy stems from his views as a black nationalist the way I understand Thomas is that he believes that the American state in particular is imbued with race and racial consciousness and he thinks it's kind of a fool's errand to try to change that Thomas is to send in this terms jury discrimination case would fit right into that category his solution to white prosecutors discriminating against black jurors is to allow similar discrimination by defense lawyers against white jurors to an entirely different view comes from professor Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna college author of another book about Thomas Rossum says that Thomas disdains prior Supreme Court rulings because they get him further and further away from the original constitution if you have a finally rock piece of furniture and you put a layer after layer of paint on it pretty soon all the detail is lost under the coats of paint and what Thomas wants to do is scrape back to bare wood to the original text but even the man who made originalism popular the late justice Antonin Scalia did not have such a purist view unlike Thomas Cooley it did believe in precedent as he famously put it I'm an originalist but I'm not a not university of Baltimore law professor Garrett app sees Thomas unique views as arrogant as an example he points to a Thomas opinion in which the justice referred to James Madison's views on separation of church and state as quote extreme and said that quote in any event the views of one man do not establish the original meaning of the first amendment religion classes wait a minute you just call Jane Madison the father of the bill of rights you just call him an extremist particularly in the area of religious freedom which is the area he is most identified with S. maintains that if you read Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence the views of only one man count how much won't knows the original meaning of these provisions and even Madison who wrote them can be disregarded now that takes a level of confidence or megalomania that I find really breathtaking it is however important not to dismiss Clarence thomas' views Yale's professor Amar acknowledges that Thomas is not written many high profile majority opinions for the court if you think that the measure of the success of the justices how many majority opinions he writes well then Thomas rank somewhat lower but if instead the game a score by how many new ideas someone gets into the conversation and eventually wins on well the Thomases way high in the pecking order indeed if the new Supreme Court conservative majority begins rethinking lots of long held precedence.

Lee twenty years twenty eight years seventy one year one hour
"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

04:23 min | 2 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

"Our libel laws so when they write the negative and horrible and falls articles we can sue them and we lots of money that was true at a fort worth Texas rally in twenty sixteen as a private citizen he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sue his media critics trump has been particularly solicitous of justice Thomas and his wife Ginny who was a vocal conservative activist the Thomases dined with the trumps at the White House this year soon after Jenny Thomas led a group of fellow social conservatives in a one hour meeting with trump the trump Thomas relationship may have been responsible for retirement rumors fueled by some conservatives who apparently wanted the seventy one year old Thomas to step down so the trunk could replace him with the younger conservative able to serve for thirty or forty more years if that was the plan it didn't work as Thomas made clear during an interview at Pepperdine University as well let's fast forward to twenty years from now at your retirement party I'm not gonna argue the twin to twin of it I'm not retired twenty years early years after each of Thomas is twenty eight years on the court analysts have offered different theories about his juris prudence Brooklyn College professor Corey robin has a book coming out this fall containing the Thomases overriding legal philosophy stems from his views as a black nationalist the way I understand Thomas is that he believes that the American state in particular is imbued with race and racial consciousness and he thinks it's kind of a fool's errand to try to change that Thomas is to send in this terms jury discrimination case would fit right into that category his solution to white prosecutors discriminating against black jurors is to allow similar discrimination by defense lawyers against white jurors to an entirely different view comes from professor Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna college author of another book about Thomas Rossum says that Thomas disdains prior Supreme Court rulings because they get him further and further away from the original constitution if you have a finally rock piece of furniture and you put a layer after layer of paint on it pretty soon all the detail is lost under the coats of paint and what Thomas wants to do is scrape back to bare wood to the original text but even the man who made originalism popular the late justice Antonin Scalia did not have such a purist view unlike Thomas Cooley it did believe in precedent as he famously put it I'm an originalist but I'm not a not university of Baltimore law professor Garrett apps sees Thomas unique views as arrogant as an example he points to a Thomas opinion in which the justice referred to James Madison's views on separation of church and state as quote extreme and said that quote in any event the views of one man do not establish the original meaning of the first amendment religion classes wait a minute you just call Jane Madison the father of the bill of rights you just call him an extremist particularly in the area of religious freedom which is the area he is most identified with S. maintains that if you read Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence the views of only one man count how much won't notice the original meaning of these provisions and even Madison who wrote them can be disregarded now that takes a level of confidence or megalomania that I find really breathtaking it is however important not to dismiss Clarence thomas' views Yale's professor Amar acknowledges that Thomas is not written many high profile majority opinions for the court if you think that the measure of the success of the justices how many majority opinions he writes that well then Thomas rank somewhat lower but if instead the game a score by how many new ideas someone gets into the conversation and eventually wins on well the Thomases way high in the pecking order indeed if the new Supreme Court conservative majority begins rethinking lots of long held.

twenty years twenty eight years seventy one year one hour
"professor amar" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

04:24 min | 2 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"A lot of the laws so when they write Lee negative and horrible involves articles we can sue them and with lots of money that was at a fort worth Texas rally in twenty sixteen as a private citizen he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sue his media critics trump has been particularly solicitous of justice Thomas and his wife Ginny who is a vocal conservative activist the Thomases dined with the trumps at the White House this year soon after Jenny Thomas led a group of fellow social conservatives in a one hour meeting with trump the trunk Thomas relationship may have been responsible for retirement rumors fueled by some conservatives who apparently wanted the seventy one year old Thomas to step down so the trunk could replace him with a younger conservative able to serve for thirty or forty more years if that was the plan it didn't work as Thomas made clear during an interview at Pepperdine University as well let's fast forward to twenty years from now at your retirement party I'm not gonna argue the twin to twin of it I'm not retired twenty years early years after each of Thomas is twenty eight years on the court analysts have offered different theories about his juris prudence Brooklyn College professor Corey robin has a book coming out this fall containing the Thomases over riding legal philosophy stems from his views as a black nationalist the way I understand Thomas is that he believes that the American state in particular is imbued with race and racial consciousness and he thinks it's kind of a fool's errand to try to change that Thomas is to send in this terms jury discrimination case would fit right into that category his solution to white prosecutors discriminating against black jurors is to allow similar discrimination by defense lawyers against white jurors to an entirely different view comes from professor Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna college author of another book about Thomas Rossum says that Thomas disdains prior Supreme Court rulings because they get him further and further away from the original constitution if you have a finally rock piece of furniture and you put a layer after layer of paint on it pretty soon all the detail is lost under the coats of paint and what Thomas wants to do is scrape back to bare wood to the original text but even the man who made originalism popular the late justice Antonin Scalia did not have such a purist view unlike Thomas Cooley it did believe in precedent as he famously put it I'm an original list but I'm not a not university of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps sees Thomas unique views as arrogant as an example he points to a Thomas opinion in which the justice referred to James Madison's views on separation of church and state as quote extreme and said that quote in any event the views of one man do not establish the original meaning of the first amendment religion classes wait a minute you just call Jane Madison the father of the bill of rights you just call him an extremist particularly in the area of religious freedom which is the area he is most identified with S. maintains that if you read Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence the views of only one man count how much alone knows the original meaning of these provisions and even Madison who wrote them can be disregarded now that takes a level of confidence or megalomania that I find really breathtaking it is however important not to dismiss Clarence thomas' views Yale's professor Amar acknowledges that Thomas is not written many high profile majority opinions for the court if you think that the measure of the success of the justices how many majority opinions he writes that well then Thomas rank somewhat lower but if instead the game a score by how many new ideas someone gets into the conversation and eventually wins on well the Thomases way high in the pecking order indeed if the new Supreme Court conservative majority begins rethinking lots of long held precedence.

Lee twenty years twenty eight years seventy one year one hour
"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

04:23 min | 2 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on KCRW

"They write Lee negative and horrible insults articles we can sue them and went to lots of money that was true at a fort worth Texas rally in twenty sixteen as a private citizen he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sue his media critics trump has been particularly solicitous of justice Thomas and his wife Ginny who was a vocal conservative activist the Thomases dined with the trumps at the White House this year soon after Jenny Thomas led a group of fellow social conservatives in a one hour meeting with trump the trunk Thomas relationship may have been responsible for retirement rumors fueled by some conservatives who apparently wanted the seventy one year old Thomas to step down so the trump could replace him with the younger conservative able to serve for thirty or forty more years if that was the plan it didn't work as Thomas made clear during an interview at Pepperdine University as well let's fast forward to twenty years from now at your retirement party I'm not gonna argue the twin to twin of it I'm not retired twenty years early years after each of Thomas is twenty eight years on the court analysts have offered different theories about his jurisprudence Brooklyn College professor Corey robin has a book coming out this fall contending that Thomases overriding legal philosophy stems from his views as a black nationalist the way I understand Thomas is that he believes that the American state in particular is imbued with race and racial consciousness and he thinks it's kind of a fool's errand to try to change that Thomas is to send in this terms jury discrimination case would fit right into that category his solution to white prosecutors discriminating against black jurors is to allow similar discrimination by defense lawyers against white jurors to an entirely different view comes from professor Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna college author of another book about Thomas Rossum says that Thomas disdains prior Supreme Court rulings because they get him further and further away from the original constitution if you have a finally rock piece of furniture and you put a layer after layer of paint on it pretty soon all the detail is lost under the coats of paint and what Thomas wants to do is scrape back to bare wood to the original text but even the man who made originalism popular the late justice Antonin Scalia did not have such a purist view unlike Thomas Cooley it did believe in precedent as he famously put it I'm an originalist but I'm not I'm not university of Baltimore law professor Garrett app sees Thomas unique views as arrogant as an example he points to a Thomas opinion in which the justice referred to James Madison's views on separation of church and state as quote extreme and said that quote in any event the views of one man do not establish the original meaning of the first amendment religion classes wait a minute you just call Jane Madison the father of the bill of rights you just call him an extremist particularly in the area of religious freedom which is the area he is most identified with S. maintains that if you read Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence the views of only one man count how much alone knows the original meaning of these provisions and even Madison who wrote them can be disregarded now that takes a level of confidence or megalomania that I find really breathtaking it is however important not to dismiss Clarence thomas' views Yale's professor Amar acknowledges that Thomas is not written many high profile majority opinions for the court if you think that the measure of the success of the justices how many majority opinions he writes that well then Thomas rank somewhat lower but if instead the game a score by how many new ideas someone gets into the conversation and eventually wins on well the Thomases way high in the pecking order indeed if the new Supreme Court conservative majority begins rethinking lots of long held precedence.

Lee twenty years twenty eight years seventy one year one hour
"professor amar" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

04:23 min | 2 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on KQED Radio

"They write the negative and horrible insults articles we can sue them and win the lots of money at a fort worth Texas rally in twenty sixteen as a private citizen he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sue his media critics trump has been particularly solicitous of justice Thomas and his wife Ginny who was a vocal conservative activist the Thomases dined with the trumps at the White House this year soon after Jenny Thomas led a group of fellow social conservatives in a one hour meeting with trump the trunk Thomas relationship may have been responsible for retirement rumors fueled by some conservatives who apparently wanted the seventy one year old Thomas to step down so the trump could replace him with the younger conservative able to serve for thirty or forty more years if that was the plan it didn't work as Thomas made clear during an interview at Pepperdine University as well let's fast forward to twenty years from now at your retirement party I'm not gonna argue the twin to twin of it I'm not retired twenty years early years after each of Thomas is twenty eight years on the court analysts have offered different theories about his jurisprudence Brooklyn College professor Corey robin has a book coming out this fall containing the Thomases over riding legal philosophy stems from his views as a black nationalist the way I understand Thomas is that he believes that the American state in particular is imbued with race and racial consciousness and he thinks it's kind of a fool's errand to try to change that Thomas is to send in this terms jury discrimination case would fit right into that category his solution to white prosecutors discriminating against black jurors is to allow similar discrimination by defense lawyers against white jurors to an entirely different view comes from professor Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna college author of another book about Thomas Rossum says that Thomas disdains prior Supreme Court rulings because they get him further and further away from the original constitution if you have a finally rock piece of furniture and you put layer after layer of paint on it pretty soon all the detail is lost under the coats of paint and what Thomas wants to do is scrape back to bare wood to the original text even the man who made originalism popular the late justice Antonin Scalia did not have such a purist view unlike Thomas Cooley it did believe in precedent as he famously put it I'm an original list but I'm not I'm not university of Baltimore law professor Garrett apps sees Thomas unique views as arrogant as an example he points to a Thomas opinion in which the justice referred to James Madison's views on separation of church and state as quote extreme and said that quote in any event the views of one man do not establish the original meaning of the first amendment religion classes wait a minute you just call Jane Madison the father of the bill of rights you just call him an extremist particularly in the area of religious freedom which is the area he is most identified with S. maintains that if you read Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence the views of only one man count how much alone knows the original meaning of these provisions and even Madison who wrote them can be disregarded now that takes a level of confidence or megalomania that I find really breathtaking it is however important not to dismiss Clarence thomas' views Yale's professor Amar acknowledges that Thomas is not written many high profile majority opinions for the court if you think that the measure of the success of the justices how many majority opinions he writes well then Thomas rank somewhat lower but if instead the game is scored by how many new ideas someone gets into the conversation and eventually wins on well the Thomases way high in the pecking order indeed if the new Supreme Court conservative majority begins rethinking lots of long held precedence.

twenty years twenty eight years seventy one year one hour
"professor amar" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

04:24 min | 2 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Libel laws so when they write the negative and horrible insults articles we can sue them and win the lots of money that was at a fort worth Texas rally in twenty sixteen as a private citizen he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sue his media critics trump has been particularly solicitous of justice Thomas and his wife Ginny who was a vocal conservative activist the Thomases dined with the trumps at the White House this year soon after Jenny Thomas led a group of fellow social conservatives in a one hour meeting with trump the trunk Thomas relationship may have been responsible for retirement rumors fueled by some conservatives who apparently wanted the seventy one year old Thomas to step down so the trump could replace him with the younger conservative able to serve for thirty or forty more years if that was the plan it didn't work as Thomas made clear during an interview at Pepperdine University as well let's fast forward to twenty years from now at your retirement party I'm not gonna argue the twin to twin of it I'm not retired twenty years early years after each of Thomas is twenty eight years on the court analysts have offered different theories about his jurisprudence Brooklyn College professor Corey robin has a book coming out this fall containing the Thomases over riding legal philosophy stems from his views as a black nationalist the way I understand Thomas is that he believes that the American state in particular is imbued with race and racial consciousness and he thinks it's kind of a fool's errand to try to change that Thomas is to send in this terms jury discrimination case would fit right into that category his solution to white prosecutors discriminating against black jurors is to allow similar discrimination by defense lawyers against white jurors to an entirely different view comes from professor Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna college author of another book about Thomas Rossum says that Thomas disdains prior Supreme Court rulings because they get him further and further away from the original constitution if you have a finally rock piece of furniture and you put a layer after layer of paint on it pretty soon all the detail is lost under the coats of paint and what Thomas wants to do is scrape back to bare wood to the original text but even the man who made originalism popular the late justice Antonin Scalia did not have such a purist view unlike Thomas Cooley it did believe in precedent as he famously put it I'm an originalist but I'm not a not university of Baltimore law professor Garrett apps sees Thomas unique views as arrogant as an example he points to a Thomas opinion in which the justice referred to James Madison's views on separation of church and state as quote extreme and said that quote in any event the views of one man do not establish the original meaning of the first amendment religion classes wait a minute you just call Jane Madison the father of the bill of rights you just call him an extremist particularly in the area of religious freedom which is the area he is most identified with S. maintains that if you read Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence the views of only one man count how much alone knows the original meaning of these provisions and even Madison who wrote them can be disregarded now that takes a level of confidence or megalomania that I find really breathtaking it is however important not to dismiss Clarence thomas' views Yale's professor Amar acknowledges that Thomas is not written many high profile majority opinions for the court if you think that the measure of the success of the justices how many majority opinions he writes that well then Thomas rank somewhat lower but if instead the game a score by how many new ideas someone gets into the conversation and eventually wins on well the Thomases way high in the pecking order indeed if the new Supreme Court conservative majority begins rethinking lots of long held precedence.

twenty years twenty eight years seventy one year one hour
"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:26 min | 3 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

"Thank you for that, very important. A note of of of agreement two final points, just say subject to the jurisdiction kid of an illegal alien in is possibly subject to the jurisdiction of some other country that he's never been to never will be to m maybe okay. But then that would be true of an illegal alien to not just an illegal alien. So if the test is somehow is there any other country that that could possibly reggae you born at dual citizen or something. And that makes you now not an American citizen because let's imagine your parents are legal aliens less. Imagine actually that their permanent residence their green card holders. But at you are on the day, you're born not just born in American under the fourteenth amendment, but you also might inherit adore citizenship from Canada or England or some other jurisdiction. So so if he says off subject jurisdiction means you can't either has to be no other foreign government possibly in the pitcher. Wow. That's a radical proposition. That's true. Not the children of illegal aliens, the children of legal aliens, not just stick people on student visas. Not just people are tourists, but actually permanent green card holders event while ou- while I'm and and now you see the clear contradiction between that and want him all our on his facts. And he says, oh the supreme court. They don't know what they're doing. And he's right. Sometimes they don't but. I'm not sure that it's his the pants doors box. Once you open. It can be limited. Just children of illegal aliens disadvantage of a very big and dangerous wedge that I think a squarely into long Kim art and the third point my final point is there is no I've read the debates about the fourteenth amendment two. I've written a bunch of books actually on the fourteenth amendment and not just this one-sentence. An I emphatically disagree with his account of actually what they say. And don't say and oh, by the way, Eric wonders on my side. And I'd rather have him than any other single person. And I actually think virtually all that reconstruction the story whom I know, and I know a lot of them, you know, with the on my said, here's the point their conversation. Doesn't began in eighteen sixty six they are building on what Bates has done in eighteen sixty two in their statutes in eighteen sixty six their amendment and. Dates his building on an eighteen forty four case that he explicitly references that is based on English rules of soil. So all this stuff about English royalists. You might not like it professor early. You might think it collapses subject witnesses and ship, but on the relevant question, actually, which is not subject versus citizenship. And it's not whether you can renounce your birthrights or not that on the question. Basically, a we in America gonna be a law of the soil place or law the blood place eighteen forty four says we're allowed the soil place. Eighteen sixty two Bates where law the soil place at place. That's what the framers of the fourteenth amendment actually say again, and again, and again, even for children of Chinese people themselves can't be citizens, but the children of foreign in America, can and they're only three exceptions and two of them come from English law all the way back in Blackstone, conquering armies and foreign diplomats and we add third for American Indians. Because it's in tribes because this is a different regime. Thank you so much akilah Moore and Edward earlier for a extremely vigorous. But also extremely deep specific and eliminating debate about this hobby contested constitutional topic. Dear with the people listeners, you have been treated to what is indeed a deep dive into this important case, and your homework is to take one of these statutes or cases that was discussed read it and see if you agree with professor Amar, professor earlier and right to me to tell me what you think keel Amar Edward earlier. Thank you so much for joining. Thank you. My pleasure. Today show is engineered by Kim and Kilburn and.

Bates professor Amar professor Kim Eric Amar Edward America American Indians England Canada Blackstone akilah Moore
"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

We The People

05:35 min | 3 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

"The original intent is clear the history from eighteen forty four on is clear and the president are clear. Well in light of the new supreme court decision that could lead states to legalize sports gambling. I don't know whether we the people can facilitate bets on not going to take that risk. But I will say that at the end. This fascinating debate is time for closing arguments. And professor earlier the first one is to you in just a few sentences can you sum up for our audience? Why you believe that the president does have the authority by executive order to end birthright citizenship. Well, I happened to be one who does not think that the president has thority to issue an executive order to imports right citizenship. But I think he's imitating for trying to imitate President Obama who said when congress won't act I have a pen in a phone to act in their stead. But I don't think President Obama ever acted constitutionally with his executive orders, and I don't think the president can act institutionally here either. But I think congress connect my statute to end birthright citizenship, and I think that they should. But I must say that professor. Amar's last. Are you? It was what Madison might call an ingenious sophism, plenty of members of the reconstruction congress wasted a lot of breath talking about allegiance when they talked to in terms of jurisdiction is not enough to take up the latest edition of blunt Black's law dictionary and look under the entry of jurisdictions of figure out what the framers fourteenth amendment met by jurisdiction. They said plainly what they met my jurisdiction in. It is not what professor Amar's says they met by jurisdiction. They meant something specific not owing allegiance to any other country being under the complete jurisdiction of the United States. And when Justice great said that the fourteenth amendment adopted, the the English common law citizenship or subject ship. He said, what known member of the reconstruction congress ever said, I read the debates more than once, and there's not a single member of the congress who ever said that we are simply adopting the English common law of of subject ship or were drawing a bun the Inca when we're converting the English law subject ship into the American law of citizenship. That was never the case. And I don't think you could ever make the argument that that was the case when a Justice gray said look one Kamarck when he comes of age of he wants to ex patriot Tim self back to China. He is free to do. So did he not understand that XP to each was against the English common law that he was contradicting himself and he contradicted themselves. Many many times. In his opinion, when he said that the fourteenth amendment adopted, the English common law, all we have to do is substitute citizens for subject and. And everything is going. Well, the opinion is simply absurd. It's absurd is in the opinion ever was almost as absurd as dread, Scott. Although dress cut opinion, of course, is to vicious to. To be merely described as absurd, but one Kamar is just as contradictory unless say, and you can't simply rely on that opinion for any anything. Good and I disagree. The one Kim arc opinion is expansive. But it's not expansive enough to say that it is a thority enough to include the children of illegal immigrants. In a two being -cluded as American citizens. I just do not believe that there has been dicta. Yes. But no case on point. Thank you so much for that. Professor more last word to you. Professor earler helpfully made clear that he thinks that congress could end birthright citizenship by statute, but the president could not do. So by executive order, tell us why you believe that. In fact, the constitution compels recognition of birthright citizenship. Great. So let's not lose track of that very important in helpful point that he did make that what President Trump is proposing flatly unconstitutional. That's actually the bottom line. Even though he and I disagree on other things. I actually think that some of this stuff is actually very very well saddled end, and it's kind of you know, rounder versus flatter. There's on some of the stuff, that's actually my view. And there are lots of things that are fairly debatable among constitutional scholars and judges. But this actually in. General isn't that close? But even for that. Okay. Even agreed that what President Trump is proposing. Professor, and I are in agreement that that's flatly unconstitutional. President can't do this, you know, heavily good..

president congress professor professor Amar President Obama Justice gray executive Trump Professor earler United States Kamar Kim arc Madison Scott Black China Kamarck
"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:32 min | 3 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

"That. Professor ruler. Of course response to a number of points accumulated, including I e said that the quotation from Senator Howard that you've relied on was also relied on by Michael Anton in the national review. He's the spokesperson for the national Security Council on whom President Trump relied and accused suggesting that there was a or inserted into quote changed its meaning the quotas. This will not of course, include persons born in the United States who were foreigners aliens. And then I suppose around town inserted an or who belonged to the families embassador. And then then professor. Amore also introduced the one KMart case. So your thoughts about why that case which applied to the children of legal aliens does not apply to the children illegally lands would be great. Actually, I'm the one who originally insight is the or in quote because I thought it clarified it. And I still think it's a the or bracketed or is justified. I wrote a response to the editors of national review, which they posted a justifying the use of the or using the Jacob Howard's of words. Because after all he said that the reason that he didn't repeat the language of the Civil Rights Act saying Indians, not taxed are excluded. Was that he regarded Indians as foreigners. So in that statement that he made he resisted including the Indians it in the fourteenth amendment language because he regarded them as foreigners in having a foreign nation. He said we've always thought of Indians as being members of foreign nations. And so they were part of the foreigners that that he included there. I gave a plenty of other evidence, including the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six in which he said, those who are subject to a foreign power where are are not eligible for birthright citizenship. I don't. See how you can get any clearer than that. But I think that. Professor Amar would reasons the fourteenth amendment is somehow repealing the Civil Rights Act the bay sixty six because the civil rights activities, they sick doesn't fact exclude those who are subject to a foreign power from earthrights citizenship. So that people who come here illegally are obviously subject to a foreign power and the Civil Rights Act to excluded them from a birthright citizenship. And now he would say fourteenth amendment includes them in birthright citizenship. So you have an incompatibility between the fourteenth amendment in the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six and I don't know of anyone who makes that argument. Now, I don't know what. Statute, the professor is referring to. But I don't believe that. There is any case on point that says except in dicta that says as the children of illegal aliens are considered to be. Citizens of the the United States. I don't think there is a case. And I don't think the player versus though does say that after all the children that were involved in that case were in fact, illegal aliens until I don't think that cases is on. Let me just say something about one Kim arc the argument in one KMart. We have to remember that his parents were legal Ilian 's they were in the country legally, but they were not eligible they could never become citizens of the United States. They were barred from. Citizenship by treaty and by statute, and they profess allegiance to the emperor of China. So. One Kamarck was born in the United station the question of whether or not he was the citizen of the United States is now Justice great who wrote the majority decision..

Senator Howard professor United States Professor Amar national review KMart national Security Council Michael Anton President Trump Amore China Ilian United station Kamarck Kim Justice
"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:25 min | 3 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on We The People

"I'm later on this. And it's called the question is citizenship. This is the issue quote citizenship of children born in the United States of alien parents. He says it's clear is obvious that eight hundred sixty two can. And then he followed it up with a longer opinion later in eighteen sixty two. But then the question can the executive just do this on his own supreme court said one thing can't executive on his own say something else. Remember that question audience because it's going to be the question for Trump because the supreme court that will weighed in on my side at later in our conversation. And so that's why you get the statute in eighteen sixty six which as you've just heard says anti quote all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power. Excluding Indians, not taxed are hereby declared to be says the United States, so that's an eighteen sixty six statue. But by their statute, can you modify the rule of dread, Scott, which seemed to say, otherwise that blacks can't be sense. And so then you have the first intense of the fourteenth amendment. That's a codification of the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six which is a codification of what bait said, which is a codification of what the New York court a chance we said in eighteen forty four which goes back to all sorts of English principles to say as a general proposition. Even if your child of aliens, you are a citizen, and and and then talk about the cases that are AB decided there after that confirm all of that with two basic exceptions in. In america. One is children of diplomats and the other is tribal Indians who basically are in a quays. I saw version of separate enclave in the eighteen sixties. And and then in England, there was an exception doesn't really matter to America at all the case, of course, cases talk about which is what happens if you have people born behind enemy lines when there's actually an occupying. Army the way, the United States occupied Germany say after World War Two, but but that's not really relevant today by that. And that's what the cases are going to say. And no one in the reconstruction congress clearly said, anything otherwise, and the an what I campus is all of this is this was the settled understanding by the Republican lawyers before the fourteenth amendment adopted. It's based on Bates was basing on this eighteen forty four case that he explicitly references earlier you have argued that the reconstruction Kong. Grice people did think differently and saw broader exceptions than just the children of diplomats travel Indians. And you have pointed to a statement by Senator Jacob Howard. This will not of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners aliens, I'm reading from the whole quote who belonged to the families of embassador or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. So that's the quotation from Senator Howard, tell us why you think that that supports broader exceptions for birthright citizenship than professor Amar suggested. Well, I think it's important the broader restrictions because Senator Howard and Senator Trumbull who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and many others said so no one in the reconstruction congress said that the fourteenth amendment adopted English common law citizenship, in fact. It could not have adopted the English common law of citizenship for one very of-. Significant reason the English come love citizenship was rejected by the declaration of independence. Let us not forget. The in Blackstone. The there is no such thing as citizenship. Blackstone says that anyone born within the protection of the king owed perpetual allegiance perpetual, allegiance as a debt of gratitude to the king. And that was perpetual subject ship. There was no citizenship. Blackstone. Does not use the word citizen and his four volume treatise on the English common law. So that in the declaration of independence..

United States Senator Jacob Howard Blackstone america executive reconstruction Kong Trump England Bates Senator Trumbull Scott Grice Senate Judiciary committee professor Amar New York Germany chairman
"professor amar" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio

Democracy Now! Audio

05:49 min | 3 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio

"Among those to address the protests with democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who's also an alum of Lia law school, dean, Heather, gherkins, released a statement saying the accusations against Kevin are quote, rightly causing deep concern Yale Law School and across the country. Meanwhile, yell law school professor who had a New York Times op-ed and supportive cabinets nomination when it was first announced now called for an investigation of the sexual assault claims in a new op-ed in the Yale daily news Monday titled second thoughts on cavenaugh professor kill Amar wrote. I believe these accusations deserve the best and most professional investigation possible. Even if that means a brief additional delay on the ultimate vote on judge cavern on even if that investigation delay imperils is confirmation. This is a Marin CNN have second thoughts because a second issue has arisen and this an issue about which, frankly, I don't have the facts. I don't think any American yet has the facts that's professor Amar for. More. We go to Yale University where we're joined by Samantha pills the second year Yale Law student who helped organize. Monday's protests, welcome to democracy. Now, Samantha, it's great to have you with us. Talk about what you're doing at Yale. Brett Kabanov, yell alum. So as you previously said on Monday, we host a sit in the first thirty minutes. We sat in silence. Took in the silence that suffused as women whose allegations go unreported sometimes for decades as your previous guests spoke about after that we did teach in and we're joined by Senator Blumenthal. We discussed Kavanagh's jurisprudence educating ourselves and as law students and other students who had joined us about what the stakes are in this confirmation process. And then a bit later, we did a walkout and discussed sexual assault allegations in our community and throughout American society as a group, it was probably one of the most powerful things I've ever witnessed at my time. AOL law school. It's a matter pills kick. You talk about what you think the significance is of this protest at Yale University where of course, Brett is an alum. Well, as you said. Yale Law degree is a stamp of approval. It's a position of power. It's a. A piece of paper that you can take into the world and show people. I am qualified to do things, and we really, really want to appeal to the highest values of our institution to the highest. We want our alumni to appeal to the highest values and we're attempting to hold both our school and our alumni accountable for the power that they hold. We believe that that power has a corresponding responsibility, and we want to broadcast to the world that we understand that responsibility that were interrogating that responsibility and we demand that are alumni take that responsibility. What are you calling for now? Our protests on Monday was primarily about three issues. The first was to support Dr Christine, Blasi Ford, and the other accusers that have come forward. These women are incredibly brave. And as you've spoken about this echoes in the hearings twenty seven years ago within Nita hill, we want the Senate to get it right this time. We are opposing the hasty and incomplete hearing process that is going on. Now, you know, in law school, we learn that one of the fundamental principles of the legal system is that to the best of your abilities you engage with and investigate the facts before you come to any decision, and we're demanding that are senators. Do that in this instance. Well, Samantha pelts. Will you be watching today and then what are the plans of the students also staff, the latest news. We have twenty eight hundred women have signed the letter in support of Brett Kavanagh's accuser. Debbie Ramirez. They were both freshmen at Yale when she says he thrust his genitals in her face at a drunken Yale party. We will be watching hearings all day today, Gill law school, and we'll continue speaking out speaking to the press until we feel like there is a full and fair investigation of these allegations. The Brad Kavanagh is not in a criminal court. He is being vetted to be a risen to the highest court in the land. And we feel like his qualifications need to be thoroughly examined before or if that happens. Samantha pelts wanna. Thank you so much for being with us. Second year Yale Law student who helped organize a protest, Monday to demand a full fair impartial investigation into the allegations against the school's alum supreme court. Nominee Brett Cavanaugh again, Debbie Ramirez also a student at Yale. This is democracy. Now when we come back President Trump's spent the week at the United Nations, he called for sanctions more. Actions against Venezuela. We'll talk with VJ per shod, stay with us. Who's. You've you, but there's. Doc

Yale University Samantha pelts Yale Law School Brett Kavanagh Gill law school Yale daily news Senator Richard Blumenthal Debbie Ramirez professor Amar Brad Kavanagh Lia law school assault Brett Kabanov professor Marin CNN imperils Brett Connecticut
"professor amar" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio

Democracy Now! Audio

05:49 min | 3 years ago

"professor amar" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio

"Among those to address the protests with democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who's also an alum of Lia law school, dean, Heather, gherkins, released a statement saying the accusations against Kevin are quote, rightly causing deep concern Yale Law School and across the country. Meanwhile, yell law school professor who had a New York Times op-ed and supportive cabinets nomination when it was first announced now called for an investigation of the sexual assault claims in a new op-ed in the Yale daily news Monday titled second thoughts on cavenaugh professor kill Amar wrote. I believe these accusations deserve the best and most professional investigation possible. Even if that means a brief additional delay on the ultimate vote on judge cavern on even if that investigation delay imperils is confirmation. This is a Marin CNN have second thoughts because a second issue has arisen and this an issue about which, frankly, I don't have the facts. I don't think any American yet has the facts that's professor Amar for. More. We go to Yale University where we're joined by Samantha pills the second year Yale Law student who helped organize. Monday's protests, welcome to democracy. Now, Samantha, it's great to have you with us. Talk about what you're doing at Yale. Brett Kabanov, yell alum. So as you previously said on Monday, we host a sit in the first thirty minutes. We sat in silence. Took in the silence that suffused as women whose allegations go unreported sometimes for decades as your previous guests spoke about after that we did teach in and we're joined by Senator Blumenthal. We discussed Kavanagh's jurisprudence educating ourselves and as law students and other students who had joined us about what the stakes are in this confirmation process. And then a bit later, we did a walkout and discussed sexual assault allegations in our community and throughout American society as a group, it was probably one of the most powerful things I've ever witnessed at my time. AOL law school. It's a matter pills kick. You talk about what you think the significance is of this protest at Yale University where of course, Brett is an alum. Well, as you said. Yale Law degree is a stamp of approval. It's a position of power. It's a. A piece of paper that you can take into the world and show people. I am qualified to do things, and we really, really want to appeal to the highest values of our institution to the highest. We want our alumni to appeal to the highest values and we're attempting to hold both our school and our alumni accountable for the power that they hold. We believe that that power has a corresponding responsibility, and we want to broadcast to the world that we understand that responsibility that were interrogating that responsibility and we demand that are alumni take that responsibility. What are you calling for now? Our protests on Monday was primarily about three issues. The first was to support Dr Christine, Blasi Ford, and the other accusers that have come forward. These women are incredibly brave. And as you've spoken about this echoes in the hearings twenty seven years ago within Nita hill, we want the Senate to get it right this time. We are opposing the hasty and incomplete hearing process that is going on. Now, you know, in law school, we learn that one of the fundamental principles of the legal system is that to the best of your abilities you engage with and investigate the facts before you come to any decision, and we're demanding that are senators. Do that in this instance. Well, Samantha pelts. Will you be watching today and then what are the plans of the students also staff, the latest news. We have twenty eight hundred women have signed the letter in support of Brett Kavanagh's accuser. Debbie Ramirez. They were both freshmen at Yale when she says he thrust his genitals in her face at a drunken Yale party. We will be watching hearings all day today, Gill law school, and we'll continue speaking out speaking to the press until we feel like there is a full and fair investigation of these allegations. The Brad Kavanagh is not in a criminal court. He is being vetted to be a risen to the highest court in the land. And we feel like his qualifications need to be thoroughly examined before or if that happens. Samantha pelts wanna. Thank you so much for being with us. Second year Yale Law student who helped organize a protest, Monday to demand a full fair impartial investigation into the allegations against the school's alum supreme court. Nominee Brett Cavanaugh again, Debbie Ramirez also a student at Yale. This is democracy. Now when we come back President Trump's spent the week at the United Nations, he called for sanctions more. Actions against Venezuela. We'll talk with VJ per shod, stay with us. Who's. You've you, but there's. Doc

Yale University Samantha pelts Yale Law School Brett Kavanagh Gill law school Yale daily news Senator Richard Blumenthal Debbie Ramirez professor Amar Brad Kavanagh Lia law school assault Brett Kabanov professor Marin CNN imperils Brett Connecticut