17 Burst results for "Professor Of Law"

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

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:13 min | 4 months ago

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

"It fair to say that. We are living in the world now that was predicted by the nineteen ninety. Ipc report says. Bill says it's just the certainty has improved. And so yeah. Those brave people that spoke out. I like dave keeling was measuring atmospheric. Co two from top montmelo. Instead we have a problem we've known it. It's just they're more certain. And that's how science works you. Keep working on reducing the uncertainty to make sure you're correct. Okay you know bill bill numa calls. You've you've said this bill that this is our like the. The paul revere moment right that the the people have been crying. The british are coming and but now they are here. So do you think that nations are more are more likely to to actually act now. Then they were in one thousand. Nine hundred ninety. I think they are but But but governments have been the problem with abc reports all along as you know The scientists put together the report. And then they write this. Summary for policymakers and then that has to be approved by governments and so of government. Sit there nitpick the language and take things out and in fact the one and a half degree report Meeting like that just like the one that just occurred for this report. A saudi arabia tried to tried to basically throw the whole thing off off the track and they They had to drop any mention of the nationally determined contributions which is diplomatic way of saying this is what we say we will do whether we'll do another matter because They just didn't want to admit that there the the that the oil era has to end And so i think that one of the biggest problems we have is that you have to have absolute universal agreement by governments where the ipc report to be approved of for of any action to be taken at the at conservative action. Taken at the un. And just look at the problem. We have in the united states between states that are coal and oil producers and those that are not i mean in massachusetts is no big deal to stay. We're going to. We're going to not have any more natural gas hookups. Try doing that in texas So these special interests are able to dominate the system both here and in europe of been involved in advising the european commission and you know ironically on the day that the floods occurred the wiki. The monday after the big floods occurred in germany They made announcement of what their forest of strategy is going to be. Which if they had more forest the floods wouldn't be as bad and yet they totally but failed to make the connection so governments are a huge problem and this is why it is so encouraging to see that that individuals institutions and even many corporations are picking up the ball and running with getting way ahead of everybody else loves the government professor law on that note. We've just got about forty five seconds left. I'm so sorry. We're running out of time here. But william munoz point about government's being challenged to finding solutions as well taken but people still want to know what they can do even as individuals. What thoughts would you like to leave them with. Individuals as still said improve the energy efficiency of your home have smaller homes Plant based diet natural. Climate solutions need to have the protect these systems that are doing the job of taking carbon out of the atmosphere forest as well as marine systems and we basically need to adapt to more frequent fires about pressuring those governments that represent them as well. Yes they're definitely gonna have to move that well. Beverly law professor emeritus at oregon state. University's department of forest.

dave keeling bill bill numa Ipc paul revere abc saudi arabia Bill ipc william munoz un european commission massachusetts united states texas europe germany Beverly oregon department of forest
"professor law" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

02:37 min | 4 months ago

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

"Trends which is understandable. Because there's a lot of fluctuation going on And not mentioning the more recent changes People may have the sense that we have have more time. We can take more time to do this when in fact you know what we're doing is Those those past decades or like We're driving along the Fine interstate highway and only in the last hundred yards Do we see that is going off cliff. But we're not looking at the last hundred yards. And that's what we're facing is the last hundred yards right now. And that's showing that these trends are accelerating and The sec has been warning about this for years And it's it's falling on deaf ears and we can talk about why that is the case and the role that governments in doing so. Yeah i wanna do that a little bit later in the show but professor law let me turn back to you here because while it is true that we can we can talk in the abstract about these numbers and what the data say the way human beings work. Nothing is as powerful. A demonstrator of or convinced of the fact that the climate is changing then personal first hand experience and i will fully admit i'm actually broadcasting from probably a few blocks away from you. I'm in corvallis oregon right now. Because this is the town where i grew up and i'm also proud. Osu grads go beavers. But i use for the past years. I've been living in new england. I'm just happened to be back here in oregon visiting so it's been a while since i've been here and walking around the forest now. I was over by a black butte in central oregon a couple of weeks ago and just even here on the pacific side of things. I have never felt it as dry underfoot or even in my hands. As as i'm feeling it now. I mean you can hear the bone dry forest floor crunch underneath every single footstep you take where we are right now. The fires aren't even burning. So i mean it's that visceral how much things have changed here. You must feel that too. Oh yes absolutely. Fires ram through my research site. That had been running for twenty years. It's a normal kind of mixed regime flyer but we've experienced that it's just it's oppressive.

oregon sec corvallis Osu new england
"professor law" Discussed on Impeachment: A Daily Podcast

Impeachment: A Daily Podcast

03:49 min | 5 months ago

"professor law" Discussed on Impeachment: A Daily Podcast

"That have taken center stage in american politics and so what the court said today. This new case brnovich verna. Vich is how he says his name versus the dnc. He's the official. In arizona that was tailing with the dnc over these voting restrictions. It concerned the two kinds of voting restrictions. Which you talk about what they call ballot harvesting caring ballots for people to the polls or discarding that ballots that are casts at the wrong precinct rather than keeping them and the supreme court said today that arizona can have these restrictions on voting that it is not a violation of the constitution or the voting rights. Act for that. Matter cannot restrict arizona's desire to regulate its elections as it sees fit. This is a matter for the states and that the federal government and the courts should not interfere. That's essentially what justice alito said here so the court majority didn't have to come to a conclusion about whether ballot harvesting quote unquote leaves votes more vulnerable to fraud than other ways of submitting ballots. They only had to decide whether they thought the state had the right to make that restriction. Well that's right and the question was whether or not there was a disparate. Impact is a disparate impact on minority voters. Now you know the court did agree. That voting is a fundamental right and therefore the court agrees that strict scrutiny. The highest level of constitutional scrutiny has to apply. But that's about that's about it. That's where the the liberals and the conservatives diverge alito goes on to say that the state here has met that strict standard because even looking at the totality of the circumstances which is what the voting rights act itself requires under section two. it can't be demonstrated alito fines. That minority voters are disproportionately affected by this legislation. That the state has met its burden to show that it has a a rational reason. A reason a state interests a compelling state interest. I shouldn't use the word rational. That has a rational actually has legal implications in law. The state has a compelling interest in regulating elections Which you know. I think people would agree. They do and that they. This law is tailored to meet that interest. That's the language we use the law. What's interesting here brian. I think i don't usually go to look at the lower court. I usually talk about the descent but here. I want to mention the lower court ruling that they're overturning. It was written by judge willie fletcher. Who was my law. Professor law school he writes for the ninth circuit here and he's overturned by judge alito. He finds very specifically that latinos blacks native americans were in fact disenfranchised he writes in two thousand sixteen presidential election. They were twice as likely to cast ballots in the wrong precinct. As we're white voters. He writes that this is because of frequent changes to their polling locations confusing placement of the plowing locations high rates of residential mobility in those communities. He also writes brian that the ban ballot collectors has an outside effect on minority. Voters who use ballot collection services. More than white voters. Because they're more likely to be poor older homebound disabled to lack reliable transportation childcare mail services to need help understanding.

alito brnovich verna Vich dnc arizona supreme court federal government judge willie fletcher judge alito brian
"professor law" Discussed on Chicago Tonight

Chicago Tonight

05:57 min | 5 months ago

"professor law" Discussed on Chicago Tonight

"They're still looking for that home. Delivery service will people have gotten used to it. We yeah convenience is key and now in the field foundation is a major grant making organization based in chicago but it is saying goodbye to its president. Where's she headed. And do we know who's taking over angelique. Power is her name and she's leaving to take over a larger foundation in detroit. That's focused on child welfare issues. The organization is called the skillman foundation. They have a portfolio of about five hundred million dollars in assets to work with compared to the field foundation seventy million in the foundation world. Those are numbers. That really matters. This is a major careerstep for her. Now as she leaves the field foundation the organization is indicated that they are going to elevate a vice president. A guy named mark murray to take over on an interim basis but they will be conducting a global search. Well thank you very much for joining us. Anna pleasure as ever thank you and now to phil ponce and a look at recent decisions handed down by the supreme court. Phil thanks amanda. The supreme court ruled unanimously today. The nc double a. can not prevent student athletes from receiving modest payments. It was the latest in a series of headline grabbing rulings from the court just last week. The court's justices also ruled unanimously surprise to some progressive that a catholic charity in philadelphia had the right to refuse to foster children to same sex couples but a duck addressing another challenge to the affordable. Care act so just what do these recent rulings tell us about the current configuration of the supreme court joining us now to help us unpack. That are michael. Sco dro- partner at mayer brown and former illinois solicitor. General who clerked for justice. O'conner david franklin associate professor law. Depaul university franklin clerked for justice. Ginsburg caroline's shapiro professor of law at the illinois institute of technology's chicago. Kent college of law. She is the founder director of the school's institute on the supreme court of the united states. And she clerked for justice. Briar and joseph morris partner with the law firm morrison dellarosa and former assistant attorney general under president reagan. And thank you for joining tonight. Mr franklin may i begin with you. The supreme court ruled unanimously against the nc double a. over whether modest payments were allowed to go to student athletes. What was the essence of the case. The decision was actually narrow. The court affirmed a lower court decision that had prevented the nc double a. From enforcing its limits on education related benefits for student athletes. Things payments for tutoring or a postgraduate scholarships and internships at the same time. The the court didn't address the broader issue of whether all of the nc double a.'s restrictions on student athletes up violate the antitrust laws. And in fact the court suggested perhaps the nc double a. still has a broad discretion To enforce some of those restrictions because they're sort of one market of people who want to watch Amateur sports and there's another market of people who wanna watch pro sports in the nc double a. has some discretion in sort of policing that boundary to make sure that line doesn't blur so The most notable thing for me was that just as kavanagh wrote a separate concurrence. Basically just lamb fasting the nc double a. for not allowing athletes to to be justly compensated. Let's take a look at the exact language that justice cavenaugh used. Because you're right. It was pretty assertive. He went on to say nowhere else. In america can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers. A fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers. A fair market rate and under ordinary principles antitrust law. It is not evident why college sports should be any different. The ncwa is not above the law. Joe morris does that mean at some point there will be a challenge broader challenge on the whole notion of pay for athletes for college athletes. Geneva winfield in the answer's yes sometimes. Invitations common engraved in the mail. This one is an engraved invitation Clearly he's inviting people to ask the question. What is the dividing line for purposes of collegiate athletics between a compensated professional athletes and amateur athletes on how those markets differ on the message. Today is is as david correctly. Said it's a very narrow one It is that The ncwa and the universities and colleges to the extent that they were involved in the business of sports have to understand that their subject like everybody else into the antitrust laws and rules that are meant to protect consumers by putting market mechanisms and competition to play. If that's what they're going to do and they need to play by those rules if that's what they're not going to do much they need to do. A much cleaner job of making clear what it is. They do caroline's shapiro. Let's move onto another case at the court took up and decided that eighteen states that had challenge the affordable care act. Obamacare did not have standing to bring the case. What was going on with that. What do you think well. They're that that was a case where a plaintiff spoke individual to individuals in a number of seats complained that the affordable care act caused some injuries and the justices said. There are no injuries here. The individual said. Well there's this mandate but.

Joe morris Obamacare joseph morris america Phil chicago phil ponce mark murray tonight Briar Today kavanagh Anna last week eighteen states amanda reagan Care act today affordable care act
"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

06:22 min | 1 year ago

"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"I believe it's our first visit. We appreciate your time, sir. How likely this debate tonight? How likely is that? Anything That happens will change even a single vote in Wisconsin. I think that's pretty unlikely. You know, you think of all the cataclysmic things that have happened over the last 12 to 14 months. It seems unlikely that tonight's debate is really going to change things fundamentally, and you've looked at this county by county and precinct by precinct north of the Cheddar Curtain, haven't you? Well, look at it pretty closely. Yes, sir. Let's go back in the introduction. I mentioned that overwhelmingly polarized. That's your your phrase for Wisconsin. And you say this developed during the Obama years? Can you elaborate on that? Sure what we saw through that George W. Bush administration wass that in good times, the opposite party would at least raised their approval levels of a president. Some And then in bad times, Even the president's party would lower their approval Writings well during the Obama administration, Republicans became less than 10% approving. I mean, no matter what throughout his term, and Democrats stayed in a 75 85% approval throughout With President Trump. It's been even stronger them. Democrats have been below 10% throughout his entire term, and Republicans even stronger in support 85 to 90% through the whole term. And it doesn't really matter whether things are getting better getting worse. We're having an emergency. We're not having an emergency. Those numbers just dont change very much. Professor Charles Franklin is here Professor law and public policy Director of the Marquette Law School Pole. What do you attribute that to? Inasmuch as you know, when you do your poles of your focus groups that people no matter what this president or any president's says, or does they're with him Lock, stock and barrel? I think it's the bitterness of partisan debate that's been growing and in some ways, Wisconsin was a little ahead of the rest of the country. We had a very bad fight over Governor Walker's limiting of public sector unions in 2011. And that divided the party's very sharply here. Even before Donald Trump came on the same, you can push it back a little bit further beginning in the nineties and following and growing after that. People came to see the opposite party in especially negative terms, even though they don't love their own party any better. And so that negative partisanship is it calls is it's called Means that you think the other party really is going to destroy the country, as opposed to being simply people you strongly disagree with on policy or even on personalities. What does that say? For our future when opposite political views, consider your political views to be an existential threat to the survivability of our representative republic. That bodes pretty poorly. I think I am seriously normative Lee quite concerned about it. You hear Democrats say that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. And you also hear President Trump and Senator Ron Johnson hearing in Wisconsin, saying just this week that Democrats don't love America on, I think those are extreme statements. They harken back to the rhetoric. We heard pre civil war. I'm not saying we're going to have a civil war, but I certainly think, uh, we have reached a point. Where it's hard to be comfortable with the other party winning and holding power for four years, and then you get a chance to vote him out. Dad comfort level of being able to think. Okay. I'm not going to like the next four years, but it will be fine and we'll get him next time. That spirit I think has really dwindled over the last 20 years. Certainly over the last 12 years and I hope that the country and our leadership will find ways to fight each other tooth and nail in elections. But then Shake hands and fight it out in Congress for the next four years. I wish there was a time machine so I could take Senator Johnson back to meet Harry Truman. And have Johnson tell Truman that Democrats don't love America, then I'd like to see what Truman did. I suspect he would have strong opinions on that I suspect is, Truman once said about a writer. If I ever run across this guy on the street, he's going to need a beef steak for his eye. Yeah, Yeah, Give them hell. Harry did indeed give Appel Now, one other thing I have to point out and we're talking about Professor Charles Franklin from a Marquette law school. He runs the pole there four years ago. The Marquette poll very well respected, showed Hillary Clinton running well ahead of Trump in Wisconsin on the eve. Of the 2016 election. What have you changed as far as your methodology to more accurate this year? Yeah, That's exactly Rite. We had Clinton ahead by six and Trump won by almost one point, So we were way off. We had good company. Nobody else got the race right either. I think the biggest thing is that this time we have an incumbent president that people already know a lot about and opinions are just very much more fixed. About half assed. Many people are undecided this year, as there were at this 0.4 years ago and four years ago, 22% disliked both Clinton and Trump. This year. It's only about 8%. So those two things really reduced the amount of swing that we could expect to see in the last week or so of the campaign. That said. Nobody should forget that we were wrong last time, and everybody should understand that polls don't vote. It's in the hands of voters. And what you do between now and election Day is and should be. What determines the election. I hope you're interested in the polls. But don't let them guide your life. Professor. Thank you. That's a great advice. We'll leave it there for this visit. Thank you for your.

President Trump Wisconsin president Harry Truman Hillary Clinton Senator Ron Johnson Professor Charles Franklin Professor law and public polic Trump America Obama Marquette Law School Pole George W. Bush Obama administration Professor Marquette law school Governor Walker Congress
"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

07:23 min | 1 year ago

"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"W L s Erich Segal is the ass family chair professor Law. Georgia State University is the author of Supreme Miss Why The Supreme Court is not a court and justices are not judges and his latest originalism as faith, which is a terrific read A lot of great love scenes in there If you enjoy that sort of thing, Eric, Welcome back to double deals. How are you, sir? I'm great strategy. I'm terrible. But how are you? Well, I know you are going to get I know it's been a depressing day for you. I'm sorry. I am so tardy. My partner and news director John Dempsey is prattle on way too long about his golf game. So I'm going to get out of the way and let you explain. I know you agree that Judge Barrett Didn't comment on Griswald, same sex marriage, abortion, climate change voter intimidation at the poles or even whether any racial discrimination and voting still exists. But my question to you Isn't this the usual modern standard? Just count the votes put on a show and hand in the seat. No, she's taking it one degree further. So, for example, Justice Ginsburg that she kept calling the Ginsburg rule. Against the girl was and I agree with it, not say how she would vote in any case, all pine on any case that might come before her in a reasonable fashion. But just the skins, Berg told the whole world. How important about your opinion? People disagree How important abortion was two women and how women couldn't be equal in society without abortions, took her opinion about it. She talked about all kinds of things like that. Now. Since then, nominees have gotten less talky. I will admit that we have never had a nominee ever. Who refused to answer basic questions. Ballpark questions like this one. Justice Roberts and Shelby County, said voter discrimination still exists. Although he went on to say other things and You know, And I'm asking you had about the holding of Shelby County, which is big voting rights case. Do you think voting in discrimination still exists on basically on race? Everybody else would have answered. Yes, I mean, Robert said Yes. In opinion, Roberts? Yes, Professor Roberts is an apostate now. You can't really, um Here's the thing. Uh, let's let's cut to the chase these but these hearings are all the they were far for sort of my era who very hypocritically. We've discussed this before. A few months before her confirmation, she said a wise Latina woman would decide cases differently than a white male. She's right about that. But a confirmation hearing in bad faith, she walked that back and pretended that she meant something else. There are no Russian, but hey, here's a softball, and this is a professor Erich Segal, Georgia state Terrific, aghast eyes. I know the answer by last question. Biggest change you'd recommend for the U s Supreme Court. Let me guess. Let me just guess term limits. Actually, that that used to be the biggest change that's number two on my list now. I would add. I don't know. Pick a number between six and 30 Justices report John, Here's the thing. We have to dilute it. Democrats want a packet that's wrong. I want to crack it Well, I would pack it if I could crack it, But I can't crack it. So we need to make this institution less powerful, ending Life. Tenure will help a little bit, but it won't really make it less powerful. We need to take power from this institution and the way to do that. Just add the European courts. Do they have 15 18 20, then they and then they issue decisions and pals. It's complicated, but no Life 10 years now Number two believe it or not, number one is figuring out a way to reduce the power of this horrific institution for both the left and the right. It's a broken institution for the American people. As we watch senators bloviate and then the judge is not going to answer. I get that It's motus operandi nowadays has been for a while. Has there been any outstanding performance from either side in this or is it just a pox on both houses? So It's mostly a pox on both houses. I will say that when the discussion turned on both sides, Senator Cruz who you might expect I did tests And Senator White House who I actually like both had Excellent presentations about the presence of dark money in this whole process on the left and the right, of course. White House came, you know, criticizing the right crews came criticizing the left, but they're both right. There is John. We've gotten to the point where this woman has been groomed for this for 25 years. I'm not kidding about that. They wanted a woman to overturn Roe vs Wade and I'm sure you remember that want to do it, and they've been grooming her for 25 on their similar stories on the left. Else. I certainly she's certainly She's very smart, and she's well rehearsed, and I, you know, I can't say she's not qualified. I can't begin to say I do have a listener who sent me along dissertation, saying she's not even close to being qualified. But, you know, does every Supreme Court justice have to be from Yale? Let me speak to the qualifications. That's not the reason she's not qualified. Um, she was a lot. She was. She was a you know, a law student, then a law clerk, and she got Scalia's clerkship on Ly because her dean wrote Scalia a letter and said, she's the best thing I ever had. Because no dames a great law school. I went to Vanderbilt. It's a great law school. We don't get what we don't get. Clark Street Court doesn't happen. Jon Garvey, who's the dean of Notre Dame law school, saw in her the potential for incredibly conservative and had to pay to say it's on this is terrible. But this this 20 years ago three years ago and attractive, articulate, smart woman And that who's that is what the right has wanted for a long time to do away with rope is a Manchurian candidate sort of battle that they didn't know what I would all play out, but they have been grooming one thing about her qualifications. When she was given her seven stroking cook Shit four years ago, which he had to get to get this Supreme Court clerkship trusting this, John, Trust me, there were hundreds of law professors on the right. And on the left from the right more qualified in her. That's not why she got this position. It is not why she got it. She got it. For other reasons she got for political and very sexist reasons. Thurgood Marshall become a Supreme Court justice just because of a skin color. No. So both Thurgood Marshall on newspaper against neither of whom had very strong pitch thins that Supreme Court justices were American heroes before they became a Supreme Court justice. That's the point, Marshall argued. Brown VS Board You found work for, Ginsburg argued, You know, all the important gender cases people like and even people like Scalia and Kennedy and I want to say left and right. Certainly just they had academic and professional backgrounds. Scalia worked in the executive branch for a number of years. Elena Kagan was dean of Harvard. During a very tough time for Harvard. She has judge Barrett has no equivalent to that. She's a good law Professor John was a good law professor. There are hundreds of good lover, but I can tell Professor Erich Segal, Georgia State. I can tell..

Supreme Court Professor Erich Segal Justice Ginsburg Professor Roberts Scalia U s Supreme Court Judge Barrett Thurgood Marshall chair professor Law John Dempsey professor Georgia State University Shelby County Professor John Clark Street Court Elena Kagan Notre Dame law school softball Eric
"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

02:55 min | 1 year ago

"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Political leader or leaders of communities come on said by the way, rioting will set back our ability to reform police tactics every time you riot. It sets back the timetable, among other things, has anybody called and said that in honor of the family's request for peace I urge all Chicagoans to join me tonight at 7 P.m. for a city wide moment of silence in honor of the life up Rianna Taylor. I'm not sure there's all the best tactics. With all due respect, I don't have to make the decisions. Obviously, I just have to talk about them. But knowing what I know, and I'm trying remember the book that I read that was so great about the civil rights movement. I think it was parting the waters. I think that's the name of the book cannot remember the author's name. I apologize. But looking at what Taylor's ranch Taylor branch parting the waters, it might be over then. So long, it's sitting upstairs. I mean, I read it so long ago. I just thought it made such an impact on me and we could really use MLK today could weigh tailing with those tactics. Smalls tactics will be welcome here in this city and around this nation today, But, alas, he's not here to upset we'll have to forge on ourselves with our current political leadership. Both in D. C. In Illinois and in Chicago. Keep calm, carry on keeping out on this level and good luck to us all. Well as if we didn't need this. The FBI yesterday and the main U. S Cyber Security agency warned that provocateurs could take advantage of a slow vote count in November. No kidding and spread disinformation aimed at discrediting the results. And who knows what the hell will happen then? We saw a little preview of this 20 years ago. Well, a man who knows of what he speaks. In fact, he's worked for the feds a number of times secretly. But he's also a vice president for research at Indiana University Professor Law and is a senior fellow of the Center for Applied Cyber Security Research. Fred Kate will ask him what he thinks about the extraordinary nature. Of the FBI coming out and saying, Please don't pay attention to social media. Fred Kate is scheduled to join us next year on Double D L s for traffic here. Wools sponsored by Cassidy. Tire and Service. The Edens is 20 minutes late Creek Road to the junction Out down. 15 Kennedy Informal here. 31 up on 30 Eisenhower in from Thorndale 41 out down 45. Stevenson inbound from 3 55 34 upon 38 Dan Ryan inbound from 19 fifties 23. Outbound is also a 23 minute trip. Lakeshore Drive sound found jammed between Oak Street and Chicago Avenue south bound on the drive on the South side, slow between 53rd and hes north bound, trying stay so between the Reagan And the Eisenhower Jane Adams West. I'm sorry..

Rianna Taylor vice president Fred Kate FBI Eisenhower Jane Adams West Thorndale U. S Cyber Security agency Illinois Smalls Chicago Edens Stevenson Reagan Dan Ryan Cassidy senior fellow Indiana University Professor L
"professor law" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

06:15 min | 1 year ago

"professor law" Discussed on KQED Radio

"One of the thing that's kind of a really unusual feature of the Trump presidency is technically It's the case that authoritarians try to court. Very good relations. With the intelligence communities within authoritarian states. Trump, as we all know, has really alienated the intelligence agencies within the country. And he arguably has alienated also senior leadership within the military itself s O. That kind of makes him somewhat of a weak authoritarians and So that's why would I characterized from such? Yeah, But what about on don't get too paranoid here, but it's hard sometimes not to picture this in a paranoid View. What about the federal agents? Excuse me. Federal officers kind of paramilitary officers going into the cities that are run by Democrats. Many think that this is perhaps moving us toward the brink of what you've just described is a serious kind of more profound authoritarianism. Well, I agree completely. I mean, I think there's something that heinous about what we find unfolding in Portland. It's heinous. At the same time, there's not entirely predict, you know not to have been foreseen mean this is a president who's Israel governed through a politics of division. And on and he thrives on chaos. He thrives on disorder. I don't think these federal agents are being deployed to the purposes of bringing order. I think they're being deployed for the purposes of tricking disorder and creating even greater disorder. And that's what his leadership style thrives upon. And maybe I should add to that. It's not simply a politics of division right now. It's also politics of diversion. Because I think this heavy handed use of federal force is also trying to disguise the incredibly anemic an epic failure to marshal federal response. In in response to this pandemic, which is ravaging our country again, I guess is Lawrence Douglas. He's professor law at Amherst and author of a new book called Willy, Go President Trump in the looming election meltdown. In 2020. I want to invite your participation in this conversation. If you have questions, or if you have comments for Professor Douglas or something you'd like to add to the conversation. Please feel free to be a part of it. And how do you think President Trump will handle the November election results? You could give us a call right now and let us know your thoughts. The call number is 8667336786 that number again. Tollfree 8667336786 You can also, of course, get in touch with us on Twitter and Facebook, and we're at the forum or email questions to four on that organ. Let me read some e mails that are coming in. Beth writes the media as a whole got the 2016 election wrong and Trump won. He actually became the vindictive media and set out to make sure he failed. What if the media is wrong again? And Trump is re elected? This is not under the aegis of your book, necessarily work on mental on that. Well, I suppose you know, since we're looking at catastrophe scenarios, Michael, I mean, certainly would be a catastrophe if he simply were re elected. Now, you know, it's it's It's not unthinkable, even though I think it is fair to say that he is in a very weakened state right now, you know when I actually started writing the book, and I, You know the impulse to write. The book actually was from a couple years back, and at the time that it was not inconceivable that he would actually Wind in 2020 and win by some sizable margin, and I was actually just trying to almost game out scenarios in which things could go sideways. But now he is a really weakened candidate. And and again, Is it unthinkable that he will triumph? No, it's not unthinkable. It's also not unthinkable that he could win through various ways of various techniques of voter suppression, which I should add. Have really kind of emerges a staple of Republican politics over the last couple of decades, and also let's not forget the warning that Robert Mueller gave about Russian interference or, for that matter, Chinese or Iranian interference in our elections, which Has to be taken very seriously. I wonder if you have any thoughts about the transition Integrity project, which has number of former governors and former Cabinet secretaries. They're trying to essentially prepare prophylactically for what we're talking about here. Yeah, Actually, there are a number of organizations out there which are trying to do so. And I think that's actually a critical thing. I think it's for example, I think it's incredibly important to have a leading Republican voices. Who would be willing, you know, intrepid enough to actually put a stop to Trump should he try to engage in acts of constitutional brinkmanship? Unfortunately, we've seen that within Republican lawmakers. We can't really expect. Ah, whole lot of opposition from them. It is show. It's it's worth bearing in mind that in the impeachment for stating the on ly, a senator who voted for removal was Mitt Romney. And as recently as eight years ago on Mitt Romney was the standard bearer of the Republican Party. He was their nominee. It's incredible to think that the standard bearer of the party as now, eyes now basically a pariah or it really Kind of tells us a lot about the deformation of Republican Party politics over the last several years. Sorry, no, it's just going to say, But I do think the efforts that you describe the efforts that actually their bark by parts of efforts in order to prepare the nation for a contested And on, you know, unusual in paper and potentially chaotic election season. I think these efforts are very important. I'm not sure if they ultimately would be efficacious if things really Play themselves out as they could. You get your response to listen, a melon who writes on feeling like the emphasis on this possibility. What if he loses, and he won't leave will only embolden Trump to act out. We know he won't go down and out quietly and all this debate is providing is fuel for his fire..

President Trump Professor Douglas Republican Party president Mitt Romney tricking Portland Robert Mueller Twitter Israel professor Beth Michael Facebook Cabinet senator
"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

03:58 min | 1 year ago

"professor law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"President and even complicates things a little bit further, John because you could say that well, even though Republicans now hold a slight edge in state delegations, all you have to do is imagine just the Democrats having a couple of pickups. In the 2020 election that is in the House of Representatives on then, Suddenly, the delegations would be split evenly. 25 25. And in that case, you really don't get a president if you have no. One elected president because there's a complete gridlock within the house, and they can't decide who the next president of the United States is. Boy, Professor Douglas certainly a good year to write this book. Yeah, You know, it's funny. You mention that job because when I started, it was a little bit of a thought experiment They start thinking about like it seemed that Trump is very likely to blame any electoral defeat on fraud. And so I just started kind of thinking of a couple of years ago. But you know what would happen if you really had this kind of challenge to the integrity of the electoral system by an incumbent president? You know how well is our system. Of constitutional federal law equipped to deal with that kind of problem and sort of my line conclusion. Is it not well equipped at all? Well, I'm sure America being a country made up of very reasonable thinking. Calm, Cool, collected people. We'd be able to work it out without any trouble whatsoever. Yes, that's exactly right. And in a sense, we have been ableto work work it out in the past, But we have largely been ableto work it out, not because the system is incredibly cleverly designed. To deal with electoral disputes. We've been able to really work it out because of the character of people seeking higher office was being sarcastic there. Unfortunately, Yes, exactly. You don't you know you have it back to 18 76 though they're the reason Hayes was finally given the presidency. The Republican was because the Republicans agreed to pull federal troops out of the south. And that was the end of reconstruction beginning to Jim Crow. So That was one big backroom deal back Teo in 18 76 so No, that didn't turn out well for a lot of people in the south. But that's how how he became president years ago, Professor on a completely different note. When I was going to school in Boston, I used to travel out to Amherst quite often, because A girl that I went to high school with was going to school there which I liked. And also I used to spend a little time playing music at the V. F W in Amherst. Is that little tiny bar still exist there. Yes, it does. Actually, That's very funny that you mentioned that so that's lovely. What instrument did you play? Well, I used to play guitar out there and we try to play jazz until the crowd started yelling at us, and then we just play classic Rock. But, you know, I spent a lot of I spent a lot of great weekends in Amherst to years and years ago. It's like, 1980 but I wanted to know was still there. Yes, it is still there so we will welcome you back to Amherst. Next time you come into town and bring your guitar along. All right, Professor. Thank you. Much of the book is Will he go Trump in the looming elect election meltdown in 2020 Professor law, Lawrence Douglas. Thank you for your time. And your analysis this afternoon so much appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me, John. Take care. Take care. You two coming up in just a few minutes. I think. After six o'clock, the mayor of Harvey, Illinois, Christopher Clark will join us. Finally, we talked often about the blues brothers here how much we loved the movie and, of course, the famous shopping mall where the chase scene happened. Has been long since torn down, but they're finally going to get some cash and make use that property. It's a really good sign for Harvey and all the South suburbs and we'll take it up with the mayor here in just minutes on Double D. L s Inbound on the slope between Winnetka and Winnetka Road in Skokie, Road, Kennedy and Councils between Montrose and downtown Outbound slow between North Avenue and.

president Amherst Professor Douglas President America Professor Trump House of Representatives Teo John Harvey United States Winnetka Christopher Clark Illinois Boston Jim Crow fraud Hayes
"professor law" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

03:38 min | 2 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on KTRH

"Only event on again I'd but you said I said of myself okay I don't know if he set up a song doesn't matter he he noise son was being investigated by the prosecutor he's on tape bragging over and over again you're not getting the billion dollars you're not getting the billion let your by the prosecutor you've got six hours six hours is we are giving exact words you know he's he's at this council of foreign relations I went over I guess the twelve thirteen time kia of an a supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee I've got a commitment from poor sienko that they would take action against the state prosecutor they didn't why did he want the state prosecutor fired why would any vice president of the United States of America ever want some Ukraine prosecutor fired because the New York times and others told him his son with zero experience being paid millions was being investigated by the prosecutor that's why and he goes on his right they said they had they were talking out to a press conference I said now I'm not going to wear not going to give you the billion dollars they said well you have the authority you're not the president resident I said column ha ha ha I said I'm telling you you're not getting the billion dollars I said you're not getting the billion I'm going to be leaving here in I think it's about six hours I looked at them and I said I'm leaving in six hours at the prosecutors not fired your not getting the money well son of a B. he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid at the time what else do you need and Paul lo si it was such a disaster yesterday she has to call a press conference early this morning to announce we're now moving forward articles of impeachment we I think we can get embarrassed like this anymore these are the most incredible times that we are living in I keep saying the by procrit bifurcate will call bifurcated brain syndrome well you have to suspend you have to live in a world of other shoe trade swamp hypocrisy and you have to ignore all that would Joan hunter and then even though aid was never discussed ever five meetings after the phone call big ones vice president bowled everybody no no and no time was ever so once he said it again this weekend we never felt any pressure we never were told to do anything we didn't do anything we got the money the only one fact witness that whatever appear in the Senate is this ambassador psalm one yeah well I as the present what everyone in exchange for money said nothing no quid pro quo everyone else is either here say or an opinion witness and these ivory tower jackasses yesterday that have a record of hating Donald Trump let's bring them in all right now we're ready let's impeach him three professors law professors a Steve law professor one that wanted to impeach trump for saying fake news could you do it you got a cut your brain and half compartmentalize a level of of other putrid repulsive dishonesty debate polling to ignore Biden and hunter and say let's impeach drop that's how bad this.

six hours billion dollars billion dollar
"professor law" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

KTTH 770AM

05:59 min | 2 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

"To stop by this hour he'll give us a left leaning perspective on the news of the day which is largely impeachment I'll get to that in a second lots of audio Fauria Josh cross our will also be here talking about the fallout from Comilla Heris dropping out of the presidential race also some absolutely ludicrous attacks on mayor Pete I am not a mayor Pete Sam right I disagree with him on most things but the bottom of the barrel opposition research that they're trying to drop on this guy it's silly it's beyond silly we'll delve into some of that also I am very excited for this in the third hour we're going to have here in the studio in Washington DC Daniel Hannan if that name rings a bell he's been on fox a number of times over the years he's a member of the European Parliament from England he's a strong conservative his party so he represents the U. K. in the European Parliament there's also the main parliament in London those elections are coming up next week so Mister Han and will be here to weigh and he's actually he's modest about it but he's very close friends with Boris Johnson the prime minister they've known each other for years he was telling me off the air because we spoke to him earlier on you tell me off the air that Boris Johnson has spoken on his behalf throughout his campaign from the very beginning so he really does know Boris we'll talk about the polling what does Daniel Hannan expect will happen in his country he has some very strong things to say about the labor party and Jeremy Corbyn and also we want to get into why is it that socialism is making a comeback in capitalist countries that have benefited so greatly from capitalism including of course the United States and the UK and why is it so seductive for young people Daniel Hannan has thought a lot about that question so we will get into that we are very very excited to have him here Jane speaking of being excited about gas mark your calendar for tomorrow you never want to miss any of the show you should listen live three to six eastern time every day guy Benson shall subscribe to the podcast a guy Benson show dot com if you miss a moment tomorrow we will have congresswoman a least a fine I care what a month it's been for her she was sort of an up and comer center right Republican member from upstate New York leadership like tears she was making a lot of moves to recruit more women to run which I think is very important Republican women to run for Congress and then with the house intelligence committee the in the limelight she certainly became a lightning rod and a very national figure what has that whirlwind been like for at least a phonic disclosure I know her a little bit we have been friendly acquaintances for a number of years I am very eager to ask those questions and I just sort of let her trying to digest everything that has gone on in her political life in recent weeks in our political life today I see that the news channels are going wall to wall with this impeachment hearing in the Judiciary Committee so last night they passed in the intelligence committee they formally basically blast the impeachment report that Adam Schiff had put together we spoke about yesterday with Andy McCarthy on this show it was a party line vote every Republican including moderate so in fact a retiring moderate will heard voted with the Republicans against now this whole process moves over to judiciary gets the Jerry Nadler show no longer the chef show which is a term I have to enunciate very carefully chef show what's the Nadler show and I understand ABC news just cut away touch of the broadcast networks NBC CBS ABC they're all covering this live as well including in addition to I should say the cable channels the fox and CNN MSNBC I see fox business is running counter programming they're not taking it wall to wall but ABC I guess they had enough and said you know what back to our regularly scheduled programming this is not compelling enough television to continue and here's the reason why I can understand why the cable news channel be covering it but this is just law professors law professors giving their opinions about impeachment based on their legal expertise right is there you died in its thoughtful and that's fine but these are not fact witnesses these are lawmakers asking questions about the opinions all four law professors when it comes to impeachment three of the law professors are the democratic witnesses surprise surprise they all think that what trump is done is impeachable one of the law professors is the other one is a Democrat but he's the Republican witness he does not support this impeachment Jonathan Turley we've cornered on their show a number of times and we will get to some of his audio I think his is the most interesting testimony today for a number of reasons before we get to the professors let's just hear from the chairman and the ranking member Jerry Nadler Democrat of New York in cut eight sort of setting the scene the impeachment inquiry is moved back to the house Judiciary Committee and.

"professor law" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

09:13 min | 2 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"Okay. Let's look at this. He can take a look. You see these year we go the guy writing this article. Charlie firestone who is he okay. He's from the Aspen Institute. Now the Aspen Aspen Institute. I'm only familiar with it because I was there for the next Earth Conference. which has the coke to push room the Charles and David Koch Room here and the kind of meal this is they then those kind of stuff right now lap right whatever? But what's his background. Well his Dan is he's been there since December of eighty nine. So that's thirty years. so He's been doing. They wanted to keep doing it all right well the you. His whole thing is focused on the impact of new technologies on democratic economic and social institutions. So it's Kinda like a communication social social media the Internet that kind of stuff and he was director of Communications Law Program University of California Los Angeles Adjunct Professor Law. UCLA and he was back in seventy seven. Ninety is also the first president of the first president. I hear you. I president of the Los Angeles Board of Telecommunications Commissioners which advises the mayor and City Council and Regulatory Matters relating to the cable and telecommunication fields. So who do you think he represented so he's definitely they rose and they're doing whatever he's executive director of Communications and society -ociety program. What the heck does that mean? That sounds like a big brother freaking title if I ever heard one all right so you have all right. Whatever it's Al That's these guys are so I am continuation with the article here to this is why you need board ops muted to but Push this doctor now. Even more concerning though is that after this process runs its course it will be extremely difficult as a practical matter for the house to go through an impeachment process for anything to President does in the future at least in this current term. It is unlikely unlikely to populous. Would stand for another round of divisive impeachment proceedings as an ongoing matter unless there is an extremely serious and obvious change such as they. Ah Them doing some stupid. Whatever I mean some real I mean come on? It's just so he he. He used the wrong pronoun or something. I mean those days are over Getting to trump I want nothing. Defense doesn't hold water really says who says this guy firestone but now this is on CNN that this is done you know this is the CNN broadcasts kind of thing. You know on their page of whatever complicating the processes that with the questions being raised about Vice President Mike Pence possible involvement in the Ukraine scandal. The presidential line of succession becomes a more of a focus. All right right. It's not about Vice President Biden or hunter or while he was vice president doing deals. Oh about him. Mike pender undermine be some Mike Pence. Thank you what okay all right all right so we gotta worry about secession here. It might go to. It'll go to Nancy Pelosi locie. Well you guys don't like that so we got to work on that. Wow these guys are amazing. Next would be the speaker of the House Speaker. Speaker is a member of the opposing party. The GOP controlled Senate. Maybe even less inclined to move forward with the removal from office in an impeachment when a president. Nancy Pelosi is possibly censure. Would issue a formal warning. This is unacceptable behavior for the president. But we will not remove you from office desk time however pending further testimony. Or should there be any instance of further wrongdoing if you use the wrong pronoun. The appropriate remedy is removal from office. Darn it ideally. The Senate would also adopt a resolution of censure the Senate really they want them to do that to those support for trump and the politics of the upcoming election would suggest that this is highly unlikely the all right what else they want to hear here. This is not a new notion essentially was proposed in earlier stages of the process by a is Norman Armstrong American Eh Economic Institute one of those groups and whatever and the Boston Globe Colin Scotland All L. Boston Globe columnist Shin- Eh. He said among others and essentially places a marker of condemnation pending a further possibility are bringing an impeachment. They just need this cloud to be trump's not going to go for this. I don't know what they're thinking he'll hubris thing he's bring it all man I want and peach. I think the fact that he wants it and we I want I never get what I want. Why they're bringing this up? Republicans chilling surrender under trump additionally and as part of the legislative negotiations. Congress could use this occasion to amend the presidential. Daniel secession actor. Here we go to change the line of succession recognizing the potential conflict of interest of an opposing party. Removing the president isn't and vice president. Congress could change the line of succession after the vice president from the speaker of the House the highest ranking member of the house from. I'm the same party as the president that way. Any semblance of partisan motivations or charges of a coup would be removed by allowing allowing the elected party to stay in office without the throughout the presidential term. Okay a bunch of stuff comes up there one. There's not supposed to be this party. Parson crap to begin again with and they say as if there's always going to be only two Kinda presupposing this aren't they that there's always going to be. There's this party and there's that that party and we WANNA make sure that the lines essentially goes the highest ranking in their party. It never occurred anybody. There might be an independent president. Then what you know so I just these guys. They're locked in to such a level of Hubris of how this government is going to play out the way they even though it's not written down. That's that's just the way it is so say social be said slow sub. Your cell be done. I mean you know. That's the mindset of these people. I mending the lion secession. Republicans could rest assured that going forward should impeachment arise again. They would not lose the president's Day. Who What makes you think any of these people are? D- whatever there's co-opted into what that Garin freaking t the house you know what. Yeah this Republican is next. insys secession yeah yeah age provocation. Yeah pinky swear that guy now we want him. Wow Wow wow. What and WHO's this too? When does this get dumped midnight? Black Friday it's always on a Friday that they'd do it as Friday after Thanksgiving they put this out. WHO's going to be covering this stuff? WHO's going to go over this stuff? You know what I. Wow Wow wow. The Democrats would be hard pressed to pull back. From full impeachment center could be seen as a slap on the rest and a failure of their leadership to prove what they in their constituencies to believe had been abuses of the presidency. But that is what compromises made of common ground a spirit of working together in the future a recent CNN poll showed that fifty percent of the country believe president trump should be impeached. was that mean. Fifty percent says no on this number hasn't changed since mid-october poll with the public now. Apparently locked into their opinions on impeachment. After two weeks you public testimony this resolution could be a way out of a mess for both parties out of a mess of both parties. I'm not not thinking trump's thinking this is a mess now it's an opera. This is awesome. I am ensures help entertainment for me. You still voting. I mean Gosh. Gosh so I'm looking at this. This and frank was right. You know this is just going to go for censure. They're going to do. And this is like the opening salvo negotiations from somebody. I don't give a crap. You know these guys are. I'm wow. Wow it's on the front page. It's called Democrats. Have a better choice than impeachment opinion by Charlie firestone on CNN here so this is a CNN. LANC now really I WANNA see. Let's go to the the site here. I want to show this all right here. Here's the the the article here boom clicked and where's ago C. N. N. dot com Democrat. And they show a chart and it's all.

CNN trump Charlie firestone Nancy Pelosi Senate Mike Pence Aspen Aspen Institute Aspen Institute Congress Dan UCLA Mike pender David Koch Communications Law Program Uni Charles
"professor law" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

09:41 min | 2 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on KQED Radio

"If you were to buy the two parts of the drugs, separately and to take them one is an approximate and one is the basic migraine drug that's been around for decades. That would cost you fifteen dollars for a month. A lot of these drugs, the basic drugs, whose prices have gone so high are available for much cheaper in Canada and other countries, it's really hard to explain to a patient, why that patient, has to pay three hundred dollars for a drug when their cousin pays thirty dollars in Canada. So who sets drug press, now, that is an interesting question at the center of this storm the PB middle players play 'em. He B M O pharmacy benefit, managers, if you're hoping that they're easy terms to know who's on what base in the pharmaceutical industry. No such luck. So P B M 's, they are supposed to work for your drug plan for, for your health plan, you and for me, they help set prices, and they for how patients will access the drugs. They set up the formularies, and then they negotiate discounts with the drug companies that's their job, and they're supposed to be helping out the bottom line for you and me. But that's not quite how it works. But my understanding was that P B M's or pharmacy benefit managers. They are incentivized to get the best deals for patients. That's how the system was set up. These are middle players. They're brokers and their job was to get a really good discount on the cost of the of the drug from the drug manufacturers, but manufacturers figured out how to turn that system on its head. So instead of giving just a discount they raise the price every year, then the broker can go back and say, oh, look, I got a great discount. However, the price is still rising. So it sounds like it's a pretty complex interaction though between the drug manufacturer and the insurer and this pharmacy benefit manager. It's a very complex system, but I can summarize it in one small. Picture. And that is drug companies are able to pay everybody all the way down the line that is these PBS middle players hospitals. Some doctors pharmacies, they pay them to make sure that patients are channelled into more expensive drugs, and that cheaper. Drugs are left out. That's how the system works. And so that helps explain to some extent, why the prices are so high. But why is it that the cost of, of the exact same drug in another country would be much lower? What kind of leverage deduct committees have in the United States, but the US government well, other countries have very different systems than we do. But here's the key, if a country like Canada or countries in Europe or Japan are putting pressure on drug companies to lower their price much easier for drug company to give in when most of their profits are coming from the United States. So you say. Subsidizing other nations or other patients and other countries who need these drugs at his exactly right. The United States is subsidizing drug prices all around the world, basically, because we are willing to pay so much for them. They can give bigger discounts to other nations, who have stronger negotiating power, mad enough we're willing, but our system allows very high profit in very high prices, and that subsidizes everybody else's drugs everywhere else, and that's because the US allows the manufacturer to set its own price man allows a manufacturer to set its own price, but also because our system has lots of perverse incentive in it to push prices higher. So they have some of those incentives. So there are the, the key is this system that first of all, puts the drug companies with extrordinary leveraging power to set up deals, and then allows them to pay everybody else along the line. I love to talk for a minute. A little bit about this. System that gives the drug companies so much power. So the name of the game in this is leverage, the more volume that a drug company has with a middle player with a hospital or P. B M, the more power. A drug company has to try to offer deals for their very expensive drugs as entities used the drug. That's right. So, for example, imagine a bar owner in imagined that Budweiser came to the bar owner. And said, I'll tell you what I will pay you fifty cents a bottle. If you sell forty thousand bottles of my, bud this year, then I'll tell you what I'll pay you a dollar a bottle, if you don't put any of that craft beer on the market. Now, if the craft beer is only selling a few bottles. There's no way that the craft beer owner could give enough of a discount that they would be able to make up for the tens of thousands of dollars. Dollars at the bar owner would forgo. So if you've got a big volume, you can use all of these discounts to pay people to keep the cheaper drug off the market. Let me give you an example. Well, this very quickly when you're talking about craft beers that for generic that is a metaphor for generics. So let me give you an example, from a very recent case that a lot of people have talked about, this is the rest, as drug, the dry drug so Allergan began a bundling scheme like this of volume discounts. When the cheaper drug was about to come to market and one plan administrator in a Medicare plan said, if the new drug company, the generic gave its drug away for free. It's still couldn't make up for the inducements that are being offered by the brand company. That's how powerful it is so where the drug companies getting that power while they're getting it from the government. Getting it from us, drug companies get patents and a dozen non patent exclusivity. Those are supposed to end after period of time, but drug companies have become masters at extending those protections piling them on over and over and over again. And then using that system to get the contract terms to get the volume that they need to make sure that when the generics get to market. They can't get a foothold. So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly, a drug company makes a drug. It gets a patent from the US government, but that patent is supposed to expire at a certain point. And you're saying that, these companies are finding creative ways to extend their patent because while they have it then generics can enter the market cannot enter the market as long as a drug company has protection it can block generics from getting to the market. There are a variety of ways drug companies can get extra protections. One of the favourite activities is simply to introduce a minor tweak on a medication. A new dose, a new delivery system. So, for example, sample, going from a tablet to melt away or three times a day pill to two times a day pill. Now, some patients will benefit from that change, but it doesn't cost drug company, very much to change the basic formulation from one to the next. However, once they do that, then the new drug. That's the one now on the market is protected by shiny, new patents and the generics that are making old form can't get near the market anymore, but you'll hear drug company say, of course, we need these patents. These are the things that help us to we invest so much in terms of the research and development of these particular drugs. And we need the protections that a patent provides, and it helps us to innovate. Innovation in the drug industry is expensive. There are differences of opinion about how expensive and I'm happy to talk about that. That's why we have the patent system drug companies are supposed to be able to when they have a successful drug make a handsome profit. But all good things are supposed to come to an end. And that's the same with patents at the end of the patent term. Generic should come in drive the price down to competitive level, but drug companies pile new protection on over and over and over again, pushing out their protection cliff. That's not how it was designed. Well, what happens when are some brand name prescription drug companies also in the generics fitness, I guess those are called authorized generics. The brand company can go ahead and make a generic version of its drug sounds good. Bring the drug price down maybe somewhat. Maybe not part of the problem is that when a drug company can get an authorized generic it can make it very clear on the market that a true generic isn't going to be able to. Much market share. They're going to be able to cut the legs out from a true generic. So an authorized generic may bring the price down a little, but the cost to society is a true, generic won't get there, and really bring the price down. We're talking with Robin Feldman. She's a professor law at UC Hastings college of the law, her new book is drugs money, in secret handshakes, the unstoppable growth, a.

United States Canada Robin Feldman Europe P. B M administrator professor UC Hastings college Japan three hundred dollars fifteen dollars thirty dollars
"professor law" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU

90.3 KAZU

11:47 min | 2 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU

"Also prepared for the world without the eye lift mR Stoltenberg warning there about the Cold War era. I n f if the intermediate range nuclear forces street, he will for more. I spoke to Robert Hunter US ambassador to NATO under President Clinton thing is that it took place that the congress at the United States invited the secretary general of NATO to address joint session of congress for the first time that's ever happened. This is a way for the congress, which has been really quite resolute on this to send a message to President Trump that the vast majority of Americans vast majority of theralac, you representatives do believe in NATO and do believe in the American continued engagement in the alliance. Mrs Stoltenberg said NATO did not want to new Cold War. But it must not be naive about relations with Russia. What did you think he meant by that? Exactly. I think he's trying to balance a couple of things number one Russia did invade Crimea and other parts of Ukraine, it's been engaged in kinds of cyber attacks against western countries. So he wanted to make clear that we're not naive about the challenge Russia's opposing but at the same time, he did underscore the need to talk, and we'll continue to do so provided. Everybody continues to be a member. So you don't need a Soviet Union for central organizing principle central organizing principle is to provide stability confidence and offense that the future can be better than it was the best. Well, let's talk about stability because there have been recent tensions. For example, after Turkey announced that it's going to go ahead with the purchase of the Russian-Made S four hundred. Missile system. The vice president vice president than warn Turkey against that saying that, you know, we're not going to stand by while a NATO ally purchases weapons from our adversity so questions about the unity within NATO itself regarding that that particular situation. Vice president Pence went way overboard in his criticisms, I can understand what Turkey is doing in terms of disappointment about not getting a New York. It's concerns about the Kurds. But I think Pence went too far in his criticism. After all Turkey is an Acura discipline in the building of all we have thirty five including two ones use by the United States, Air Force and navy. Finally, let's talk about you. Let's talk about president Donald Trump's attitude towards NATO because he frequently accused NATO's European members of not paying their fair share of the defense burden. The fact that the US coughs up much of the money. And and that he he he stated many times that he wasn't happy about that. Do you think that the US would seriously consider reducing its funding or even withdrawing from the alliance anytime soon, given this the current administration's attitude towards NATO, I have no doubt. The United States will continue to be deeply engaged and committed to NATO because it's in our fundamental national interest. And I think Mr. Trump understands that as well as any now the issue about burden-sharing with between the United States, Senator penalized goes back almost the alliance. The so-called two percent goal. That is spend two percent of gross domestic product on defence by the NATO allies that would have begun under under Obama by one of his secretary of defense, Robert Gates and Trump is just following along in that now is negotiating technique may be a little harsh. But it didn't make this out Robert Hunter their US ambassador to NATO under President Clinton. You think she Newsday with Connie shop in China Khalil, and Matthew Kenyon has a sport us. Leonardo energy. The event is player who appeared to suggest that his teammate motza Ken had Bain fifty fifty responsible for the incident in which he was racially abused culinary because of his call center abrasion in front of their fans has sent he was misunderstood because he didn't express himself clearly enough. His quote, I firmly condemn all forms of racism and discrimination. The abuses on not acceptable a toll, and this must not be understood. He said on social media last night on the pitch. Manchester City back on top by point in the English Premier League. Securing an eighth successive win in the league on Wednesday beating relegation-threatened cod. If city to no seven changes to the team from their last outing. But no Trump in performance so young men's name, okay? Down in history for Tottenham Hotspur fan score of the fest league goal at an you sixty two thousand plus capacity stadium. They won the game as well. The Novick trae I've at Crystal Palace. It looks amazing venue. They'll be hoping the wind settles them in very quickly and a festive visiting Dan in his. Second incarnation as coach of Real Madrid. They went down to one Valencia. Thank you know, as we were hearing in the news, the former boss of the Nissan car company Carlos going has been arrested again by prosecutors in Japan. Matt Davis with our business stuff is here met this is arrest. Number four, isn't it? Yes. This is Michigan's full time around this particular block. He was only recently released on bail off to spending a hundred and eight days in custody, and this time it's to do with the allegations that he paid in a Mani businessman, thirty one million dollars from company funds. He's already faces charges of misstating his salary and misusing company funds. He of course denies all the allegations. Mr. Jones lawyer Junichiro hironaka told reporters he doesn't understand why his client has been arrested yet again got. Meal if prosecutors still they could gather enough evidence for another prosecution, I should have just slapped. Additional charges understand why they detained him if anything they chose to meant him through hostage. Justice and trying to gain the up behind the whole Bill. Carlos lawyer Chiro here nocco there. So how long do you think this is going to go on? It's it's just been such a saga with Carlos going in and out in and out. This is the big how long is a piece of string question really could be months. It could be is there's a lot of twists and turns as you say Nissen's, the Reynaud had initially questioned the Japanese charges, but on Wednesday, they accused him of violations of the group's ethical principles and of his latest arrest. Michigan says, it's outrageous. And Autry and accused of trying to silence him, it's actually quite unusual in Japan for some someone to be out on bail to be rearrested. And he tweeted earlier this week that he was planning to hold a media conference next Thursday in which he said, he would tell the truth about what was happening Matt many things. Now, scientists in Sweden have created a transparent kind. With that can transmit light and absorb and release the heat think about saving on energy costs. Now, the material is mostly by degradable capable of being composted opening the possibility to its why to use an eco friendly buildings, for instance, now professor laws bug lint of the Royal Institute of technology in Stockholm joins us now. Welcome to the program said this has been in development full a couple of years. Now, how this means that we could have wooden windows. How how do you actually make would Chon spare and didn't very simple tons? So you need to remove let's say the brownish part two would that absorbs light? So this we'd removed by chemical means. And then we need to fill the police base with a polymer that has the same optical properties as cellulose. Okay. So now is it actually news because it could be an alternative couldn't it to things like plastic to a glass to cement. Yep. In particular glass, and plastics that are used in building up the cases. So that is Sutton an alternative to that. Now at this makes for amazing homes any energy efficient homes because it absorbs the heat, but then there's not much he for example in Sweden. So what is doing? What happens during the wintertime, for example? Would it be useful in countries like Sweden itself? So then I think it's more for. Yeah. That's a tricky question heat storage. This heat storage function is of course, primarily for whole. So it's not very useful in the winter. Did you have that in mind when it was being developed that this was going to be something that you, you know, you use largely in in warmer climates? I think the way scientists recent is that we find something interesting that we can make would transparent, and then you just go from there. So it's it's not exactly like an engineer is working. You you address a probe you find a problem, and you're trying to solve it. This is more bottom up research, really find something interesting. And then we're looking for possible applications while I not raises an issue of sustainability, doesn't it because? Recyclable and reusable solutions not necessarily biodegradable. I think it depends on the location in at the central state dot com. We have wooden structures that are twenty years old. So it all depends sometimes the bet environmental effect is obtained from there durable material. So you have to decide from case to case what is best. At the moment. This would also has a critic in it. So not completely by degradable. Then you have to replace that when something buy. Yes. Yes. So this is this is the most important research lines that we have to find. Polymers with bio based origin. That has the right optical properties. That's the that's the trick. They're not that many fully bio baseball with the right optical properties. Okay. So have you put to the test? Have you actually made windows already? Would this would? I mean, not full-size we've demonstrated it in ten by ten centimeters. And it's you don't have the same optical transparency as you have with the window glass. So this would be something with with high. What you call high transmissions, but it is scattering light. So you cannot release see through thick sections of of transparent would I'm not sure people would like that you'd want to. Tentative is it. Some in some cases you want privacy. So if it's did the whole house by this with people are going to be able to say completely committed John Steinbeck, professor laws of the Royal Institute of technology in Stockholm. Thank you very much talking to us about transparency in wooden. It looks like it looks like.

NATO United States Donald Trump President Clinton Carlos Sweden Robert Hunter Russia President Michigan Turkey congress Matt Davis vice president Mrs Stoltenberg Royal Institute of technology Stockholm Soviet Union
"professor law" Discussed on Boston Herald Radio

Boston Herald Radio

14:53 min | 3 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on Boston Herald Radio

"No good somewhere. Well, Boston Herald reporter is aware. The Boston Herald. We're back. We're back. Okay. I didn't realize we're back. Sorry about that. Sorry for the delay. Joe? Batten value, your host, the fat and feld. We're talking about politics. We talk about the presidential race six one seven two eight six five six three three is our text line. If you want to join the conversation, or if you have a question or comment, six one seven two eight six five six three three President Trump right now is holding a little news conference talking about the government shutdown saying, I don't think we're going to apparently saying I don't think we're going to have a shut down. But I'm I'm not sure exactly what. What his comments are. But it looks like you might be offering to support the compromise deal that the Republicans and Democrats put on the table for border wall fencing and border security, but an appropriations, but we'll see we'll see what happens six seven to eight six five six three three. Again is our text lines away to join the conversation. He did mention your questions respond to your comments. He did mention says Warren has no shot. I'm surprised she even announced. Assume that's because of her. The new revelations about her signing up as an American Indian for all those years. I mean, I just I just think it's going to be tough for candidate. For president. For candidate for president. To come out and admit, I claim to be a minority you're white. Okay. She knows she's white. She claimed to be a minority for at least ten years or more than that. How can you possibly? Run for president and be be elected president with that in your background line about your s city. I don't I don't I don't get it. I don't see how that's going to happen. I think people will reject that. And so I think she's going to have a really hard time before people knew that she. Had at least signed up as a minority that she was listed in law school directories as a minority, but and was listed in Harvard as Harvard University as minority as late as nineteen Ninety-six. But. You know, the big thing is now she's saying she didn't try to get any unfair advantage over. Well, why are you doing it in the first place? Why would you possibly claim to be a minority other than to use it for your advantage into use? It not just for your advantage. But for the university's advantage. Don't forget in the nineteen eighties early nineties. These universities were under a water pressure to hire minorities. They were to diversify and so- Harvard. I'm sure it was thrilled to have an American Indian professor law professor in their in their Harvard Law School anyway, it was thrilled to have a minority professor in their ranks. So that's why she was that's why it helped her. And of course, it took away the spot from somebody else from an actual minority who they could have hired instead. So she was taking somebody's spot for that. I don't see how you can reconcile that and be elected president. And I just don't see lying about your identity of of all things three three nights as you're right. Joe? She can't she is running for nothing. She is running though. I mean, she's got a platform. She's got a lot of money. She's got name recognition all over the country. So she's going going to be. Force in the race. And at least get some votes. I think, but I don't I don't see her breaking out of the pack because there's so many so many candidates like her now, it's not like she's not like four years ago where people were trying to get her to run against Hillary Clinton that would have been doable. I think if she just had one opponent, and she was like the new thing in the new liberal, darling. That's the time. But she's no longer the liberal, darling. She wants was it people are even starting to question her because of her claims of minority status. I think. A lot of Democrats are even starting to say, hey, we can't we can't nominate somebody like this who claims to be a minor who is claimed to be a minority. We just can't we can't we can't take a chance on them losing to Donald Trump. They they won't nominate anybody who has. I think before this race is through by the time we another year passes around and it's the New Hampshire. Primary the New Hampshire. Primary a year away. I think we're going to be seen revelations about a lot of these candidates that kind of ruined their chances because anything in your background that's viewed as too much baggage. They're going to be people are going to be shying away from those candidates because they want somebody with a clean shot at President Trump who doesn't have baggage and their background. Who chose the liberal line? But maybe is moderate enough to draw in votes from independents that would be important to you can't just win. Driving liberal democratic votes. You've got to expand beyond that. Obviously, you're not going to win the White House just by being the strongest liberal in the rates. So I think that's what Democrats have to reconcile. They look like they're already shooting themselves in the foot left. And right. I did a call about this today. The party imploding right on cue. Ardi imploding, right on cue. At a time when Democrats should be crowing there imploding, the party infamous for its internal. Squabbles is now in full damage control after one of its own was accused of spreading anti semitic falsehoods. While top leaders in Virginia are fending off allegations of racism, and sexual assault is crazy in Virginia. I would love to be a reporter in Virginia right now, they don't even know who's the governor is going to be it could be like the fourth person in line because the attorney general apparently was like third person in line. The Senate majority leader Bill. No, it's the speaker of the house. I can't think your headphones are dead. I think it's your headphones. Do. I think it's your head for. I don't think these are working. I think you have bad head boss. You may want to try another pair of headphones. I don't know if you are. Describe another pair. If you grab another perfect volunteer. We can try those having technical difficulties. I don't know if you may be ripped hiking here. Oh, that's I don't know. Maybe you maybe they came undone when you got up before, but it's very possible. Couldn't hear you. You hear you can hear anything. Yeah. You could hear the music that makes sense. Yeah. It isn't hooked. I can see the cord on the floor. So. About what was I saying? I forget even what we're talking about. In in Virginia Virginia. The fourth person line. And this is the only saving grace to Northam is the speaker of the house and the speaker of the House Republican. So if it goes to speak with the house that's gonna flip from democrat Republican so north of maybe saved only because the fourth person is a Republican, right? Right. So in the Lieutenant governor, but Lieutenant governor I think is even the north north of is calling for him to resign. Right. It's gone. Everybody's calling for him to resign. Lieutenant governor to resign because it's his worse because of Kavanagh that's why because they all came out when when Christine Blasi for came out and made those accusations about cavenaugh sexual assault. And every democrat the world said, I believe her I believe her I believe her well to people have come out in named themselves publicly have come out which takes a lot of guts. I think to come out and put your name out there and accusing and these are people like law professors, they're not like, you know, just schmos if who came out of the woodwork. They're like real serious people. And then over the weekend was aired on mistake on CBS this morning. He was on with Gail northern said something about like indentured servants. Indentured servants used instead of slave del king still slits. Him. Oh, yeah. Why would he say that? I don't know. He he's not gonna Mike even when he's when the when the the the reporter tried to get into the moonwalk yell most. Luckily, say maybe not Rini slut to that not appropriate. We need candidates like that. What is the white takeover? I don't know. And I know in the report that would have been awesome. If the report actually got him to walk. Oh, yeah. Like, you know, like he's going by. If you could tell it was like, what was look like. Yeah. I know obviously Donald Trump last night at the rallies making fun of him for almost at the moon. Walk right. Like, it's just I don't know. But this one saving grace McGuinness. House houses the fourth in line, and he's a Republican. So I used to do the moonwalk, but I never I never wore black. They never considered it. I don't think this up a problem. Everybody did at the time. Michael Jackson was big and the one thousand nine hundred eighty s I don't think he has a problem with the moonwalk. It's the fact that well he was wearing black. Yeah. So yeah. And then obviously, the the attorney general too. So I don't know. I don't know what's going on in Virginia. But it's not good. But northern looks okay. For now apparently to we were talking about fifty eight percent of the black voters Virginia. Don't want him to resign. I think that's him in black face because I think it looks like him, of course, in the picture. Yeah. Course, there's no he he's not the hood back. They say he admitted to it. And then came back and said, well, I don't know yet. I don't know. Yeah. Not that time. But the fact how would you even be unsure about that? I don't think it's something you forget no now ignore the edibles in the waste KKK guy at a picture in my yearbook. Like, he obviously knows this is yearbook and seeing the photo many times and his nothing. Maybe maybe just not thinking back then. But why would you want your picture taken like that? Would you want a black face photo of you? Anyway, especially like in the yearbook, I don't know. Glad julia. Smiley. Black-faced guy was fine. And maybe they finally put somebody has to someone that put the yearbook together. Right. Okay. Let's put that in there. Let's put it in. That's that's approved. It's virginia. Well, it's all I can say and again as I said like we were talking about yesterday fifty percent of the vote the black vote in Virginia still wants to do. I know which is crazy. So I just don't Republican because they know the fourth person like that's what it is. I wonder if they'll if the Lieutenant governor does resign can he appoint another Lieutenant governor. And then I don't know what the lies in Virginia. And they've they kick him up for the new Lieutenant governor. He probably wouldn't like it Massachusetts. Anybody governor believes? Yeah. There's just no lieutenants appointing. Yeah. Nothing else or it could point the worst. I Republican or something like that. And then he says he also told something about like because he's doctor. Why is he doing interviews? He'll king. But he's saying he's a doctor. We need some that can heal. That was one of the things. He's like what does your field? State. I don't know how he became governor in the first place. This guy does not seem like no, I think his wife should take over. But he's like a neurosurgeon. No duct. He's very book. Smart. Just not smart street smart. Yeah. Obviously, obviously, he's taking these pictures and saying the things he saying, no he doesn't seem to get it. Six one seven two eight six five six three three seven eight one says Dem's are killing themselves going to the left makes Trump look good. That's what Jacqueline Cashman had a call came up with a call today, noting that Trump's approval rating at least in the Rasmussen reports which. Is controversial because Democrats claim Rasmussen favors Republicans all the time. But I do interviews with Rasmussen all the time, and we used to have them as a pollster when I worked at Fox News here we had Rasmussen. Pollster they weren't that far off? It wasn't like they were crazy Republican they just use different methods. I a little different methods than the other pollsters. Do they use only use a tight screen for only likely voters? And so that can cause they're polls the differ a little bit from the other pollsters, but you know, Jacqueline Cashman noting that Trump's approval rating hit fifty two percent among likely voters his highest since March twenty seventeen right after he took office. Some are attributing the bump to state of the union address. But I don't think that's the case people have already forgotten about the state of the union address. That's ancient history state of the union. I don't think really did anything. So maybe her theory is that it's the Democrats that are causing drifting so far to the left that it's caused the Trump's approval rating to grow up because he seems like sane next to some of these Democrats and the green new deal. Yeah. I think it's gonna be hard. If the Democrats pick someone like Warren, I don't think they're going to pick war. Kamala Harris who I thought had some good background..

president Donald Trump Virginia reporter Joe Warren The Boston Herald Trump Rasmussen assault New Hampshire attorney Batten Virginia Virginia Hillary Clinton
"professor law" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:37 min | 3 years ago

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

"My job is more important to prevent victims than just arrests criminals of of already victimized someone in front Heron when you're thinking about this and leading this police department, you talk about preventing crime, which sounds very minority report kind of, you know, future Eiji. How's it? You're preventing crime. Is that that you're worried about recidivism or does something else going on people don't wake up and say today, I'm going to be a criminal, and they do one and done people commit crimes over and over and over again. So if someone is dealing from cars breaking into houses, they're not doing one and done. They're going to do this continuing until they get caught our job is to stop them. Make sure that if they do want today that they can't do tomorrow. And that's what rapid DNA does it gives us the avail. But the ability to identify someone rapidly and the name and get them off the street immediately, not eighteen months later. So if traditionally if the state, even processed the DNA force, you're talking eighteen months, how many crimes I don't know the answer how many crimes that person would have committed. But it's a lot more than one. No, one commits a crime and goes back to leading a clean life the next day, and of the people who you find to be charged that that you connect to a crime what proportion of it are the crime that is under consideration. And what proportion of it would you say we're talking figures here, but what proportion would you say are actually you're connecting them to other crimes and other violations. Both so rapid. So we're we're looking at someone and we're putting them through the rapid machine that person if they're the person they're going to be connected to that crime immediately. They also be connected to other crimes, which is what we're finding. So cry. That we've processed over the over the last couple of years and we've been doing this since two thousand ten with local data basing. But then since March of two thousand seventeen would rapid they'll hit two other crimes there in our database just sitting there processed crime scenes that they're the NA has been sitting in our database, and now when we process them rapidly, we're by dentist them in ninety minutes and charge them with the other crimes fascinating. So stick with us. Fred Fred is, of course, the effectively police chief for the Ben Salem township in Pennsylvania and was the first police department. If I understand it to really get the use of this rapid DNA machine. I want to bring in now another voice joining me now from state college, Pennsylvania is David Kay, a professor law at Penn State in a frenzy DNA expert, David welcome on point. Hello, david. So there was recently the passage of the rapid DNA act and signed into law by President Trump supported by a former Senator from Utah Orrin Hatch that really expanded the universe of how these machines could be used. We only have a couple minutes before the end of this first segment, but I wanted sort of leave listeners with understanding of what what is that act do. And how does it change the universe of possibilities here? The act was designed to make the system known as Kotas the well explained to post what that means right combine DNA index system, which is the records the profiles of DNA thin. Mr. Herron was talking about things that are on file, but these are on file not with localities necessarily. Although there can be local quotas databases they feed to a state database. And intern those profiles of become part of a national database administered by the FBI that enables, of course, a suspects DNA someone who is convicted of a crime, for example, which may be unrelated to be checked to gave a nationally against a an index or set of profiles of unsolved crimes the requirements of Kotas previously for putting prevention database before the rapid DNA law right for getting them onto the codex databases really required that the a laboratory an established certified if it as it were accredited DNA laboratory do the testing then the profile could be uploaded this shortcuts that it makes it a more efficient system. If the same information. Reliably can be obtained in just ninety minutes instead of having to ship it off the laboratory way to the laboratory gets it and so on so that's the idea behind the act it makes the national system and.

Fred Fred David Kay Kotas Pennsylvania front Heron Eiji FBI Mr. Herron Orrin Hatch intern President Trump Ben Salem Utah Senator professor eighteen months ninety minutes
"professor law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:40 min | 3 years ago

"professor law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The democratic response to the president's remarks. Now, this is decided to be a focus of the national emergency that he wants to declare over the border security, and the president has said in recent days that he might employ to the emergency funding for the border wall. If congress doesn't approve it. Well, can he do so Noah Feldman is professor law? Harvard University also a Bloomberg opinion columnist. He can be followed on Twitter at Noah Feldman. Noah can the president declared a national emergency to build a wall. No, there's no provision in the constitution that says that the president can declare an emergency. And then spend money. That hasn't been appropriated to him and Donald Trump, Ken invent one for the occasion. And there are provisions in law statutes that allow the president to declared emergency and do certain things. But as far as I know, none of those provisions says when she's convergency the president can spend money on something that congress has made it completely clear that it doesn't want him to spend money on such as the wall, which has now been denied him by congress isn't around professor Feldman. There is a significant constituency within congress who do support the wall is there enough data that we have to make that assertion that definitely congress does not want this. Yes, the previous congress was asked to provide appropriate funding for this and declined and the current congress has been asked to do. So by the president, and has declined it didn't ever gets more explicit than that, congress has to be seen as a single bodies being with a single voice says, yes, or no. And it does it by voted innocence. It's it said it said no twice. There's also precedent. Israel court precedent for thinking of Congress's refusal to authorize something as an explicit statement, the president that he that he can't do that thing that goes all the way back to the famous steel seizure case when Harry Truman tried to seize the steel mills supreme court said this is a situation where congress has not authorized the president to do this in their proof was that there were other pieces of legislation that authorized the president's do other sorts of things. But there was no legislation saying the president could seize about way. And so the court said that was evidence that congress did not intend to give the president authority. Now, what does the national emergencies act outline is to specific powers of the president to declare an emergency. Well, one thing that's eight frustrating about the national emergencies act is that it's an empty shell. It says that the president may declare a state of emergency. And it says when he does that congress could choose to overrule it, and it says once he's done that he has whatever authority comes from one of four hundred seventy separate laws. Scattered all over the statute books each of which confers some specialist already on the president in an emergency. So then you have to figure out which one of those four hundred seventy plus laws is in play. And you have to see if there's any authority under those laws that actually would that the president do the thing in question, and in this instance, nobody has put forward to my knowledge I looked high and low thirty that says that when the president of vegetated emergency he can use. He can take money that hasn't been appropriated to do something that congress doesn't wanted to. To do. So professor appel been let's say President Trump says, you know, what I'm going to give this a try. Anyway, I'm gonna go ahead and declared a national emergency just take the take the money, and it goes to the supreme court. Do you think that they would rule against him given the composition currently? I do even the conservative justices are real believers in the separation of powers, and there's probably no clear violation of the separation of powers than the president deciding that he gets to spend money when it hasn't been appropriated by the congress, you know, the fundamental power of congress in the US constitutional system. The most basic thing they can do is the power of the purse, and if the president can get around the power of the purse, then we don't really need congress anymore, and that can't possibly be design that the framers put in place and the conservatives on the court originalists, and they believe in looked at founders designed and they're not interested in abolishing congress. Noah Feldman, does the international emergency economic Powers Act that offer the president a way in which to use the legal apparatus of the government in order to change the direction or fly. Oh of financial transactions. Well, this is not an instance where financial transactions would be in play. I mean, there are emergency powers like the one that you mentioned which say, for example, you know, if we're suddenly a war with another country, or if you know, our assets are seized another country that the president could take unilateral steps again authorized by congress to as you say reverse the flow transactions are free that that's where things like that. But this is not what we're talking about. This is about the president actually taking money from the US treasury that has to be by law. Appropriated by congress and putting it to a purpose that congress has said you can't use it for, and that's that's not covered by any of the emergency powers accidental where I have to wonder what's the potential liability to President Trump. Should he go ahead and declare the emergency powers to seize this cash me, let's say he says, look politically it looks good for me. I don't care if it's legal if it.

president congress President Trump professor Feldman supreme court professor Harvard University US Noah Twitter Bloomberg Harry Truman Israel Ken appel