Category: Constitutional Law

6

City of Boerne v. Flores and the Bill of Rights

I taught Boerne yesterday and noticed something new. Look at this passage in the Court’s opinion:

The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. (citations omitted and emphasis added)

Read closely, this sounds like a statement that the first eight amendments (not the first ten) are the Bill of Rights. The first eight amendments are described as self-executing. Then the Fourteenth and “the Bill of Rights” are called self-executing. Does it not follow that the first eight amendments are the Bill of Rights?

I doubt this is what the Court intended. Probably just a case of imprecise writing. Still, though, there is a rich tradition of calling the first eight amendments the Bill of Rights, as I explain in my book. Maybe this should be seen as the most recent one.

4

FAN 178 (First Amendment News) On Hate Speech — Dershowitz Review Draws Reply

The bigot is not a stand-in for Tom Paine. .  . . Reality is not paradoxical. Our answer to the question, does defending Nazis really strengthen the system of free speech, is . . . generally no. Sometimes, defending Nazis is simply defending Nazis. –  Delgado &  Stefancic

Last week I profiled Professor Alan Dershowitz’s Washington Post review of Professors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s Must We Defend Nazis?: : Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy. In the spirit of a robust exchange of views, I invited some replies to that review.

Professor Shannon Gilreath kindly accepted my invitation. Gilreath is a Professor of Law and Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Wake Forest University. He is the author of The End of Straight Supremacy  (2011), in which he argues that anti-equality propaganda is incompatible with the right to equality enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. His reply is set out below (an invitation has been extended to Professor Dershowitz to respond).

               ______ REPLY ______

Must We Defend Nazis? is a timely update to Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s now classic theory on equality and freedom of expression. Their theory has influenced a generation of lawyers to reconceptualize so-called hate speech, not for the ideas it expresses but for the injury—the discrimination—it effectuates. Once this perspective is understood, the old canard that we must “protect the ideas we hate” falls apart.

Delgado and Stefancic do not advocate the suppression of ideas or viewpoints, but rather the responsible regulation of certain types of speech as action—as actually doing the material discrimination they are designed to do. Their theory is not designed to shut down civil dialogue or to safeguard fragile feelings. It is about inequality and the role a narrowly-defined class of speech plays in creating and perpetuating inequality.

Professor Shannon Gilreath

In his review, Professor Alan Dershowitz instead worries about majoritarian condemnation of some ideas as “evil” and what perils to democracy might follow. None of the examples he offers is even remotely related to the kind of equality practice in speech that Delgado and Stefancic propose.

The case for “reasonable regulations”

First, he suggests that Delgado and Stefancic’s theory may support the silencing of activists who argue for Israel’s right to exist. But nothing in the book supports a heckler’s veto on political discourse. And there is definitely no support for anti-Semitic harangue dressed up as anti-Zionist critique. This is not to say that such things aren’t happening on some campuses. It is merely to point out that Delgado and Stefancic in no way support it or condone it. In fact, Professor Delgado and I collaborated on a symposium to address contemporary problems in free speech, and one of the issues included at Delgado’s suggestion was “the new anti-Semitism,” as Kenneth Marcus calls it, that is overtaking some campuses in the name of free expression.

Professor Jean Stefancic

In reality, Delgado and Stefancic offer a First Amendment theory that actually would allow reasonable regulation of anti-Semitic speech in ways that promote the equality interests of American Jews. The ACLU’s absolutist position instead prioritizes Nazis—a fact Dershowitz admits by his insistence that Nazi speech is at the core of the First Amendment. For Delgado and Stefancic, a commitment to equality lies at the core of a First Amendment utilized to operationalize the equality that, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, is at the heart of the Constitution itself.

When “neutral” is not neutral

Dershowitz prefers “neutral” speech regulations, dismissing the authors’ warning that such principles do little for the vulnerable in a system that pretends majority and minority start from the same position. He cites “time, place, and manner” restrictions. Such limitations may work if the question really was one of “hurt feelings,” as in regulations on funeral picketing, for example. They do nothing to deal with speech that produces discrimination at a systematic level. For example, a poster demanding that “Blacks Go Back to Africa” permitted in the common area of a dorm but prohibited to be nailed to the door of a black student’s dorm room is an absurd distinction. The discrimination happens regardless.

Professor Richard Delgado

Contrary to the ACLU position of “more speech,” this kind of message isn’t designed to encourage a civil political discussion on race relations. It is designed to frighten and silence. Similarly, a burning cross that is confined to the private property of a white supremacist, as in Virginia v. Black, still produces the inherent injury of discrimination through fear and intimidation, and those who are disposed to enact the harms it represents are buoyed in their desires by the display. The Court’s refusal to see the systemic meaning of such a display was farcical.

The difference in approach from Europe is, I think, explained by the fact that a majority of Americans, unlike Europeans, have never had to grapple first-hand with the kind of violence and misery anti-equality speech can produce. Public displays of anti-Semitic “news” and cartoons (Stürmerkasten) in Nazi Germany served both to cow Jews and to recruit perpetrators. It cannot happen here is too easy an attitude to take up. In fact, since Donald Trump took office, crimes of physical violence against racial minorities and gays and lesbians have risen sharply—over 400% for gays and lesbians alone (see here also). The sharpest spike in university campus crimes has been against Jewish students.

Dr. King & the Klan

Finally, Dershowitz supposes that the triumphs of Martin Luther King would have been impossible in a system other than the absolutist one he defends. This particular jab seems especially dishonest, since Brandenburg v. Ohio, establishing our recent, Klan-friendly theory of free speech, wasn’t decided until a year after King’s death. Suppressed in Dershowitz’s evenhanded treatment of the speech of Nazis and Martin King is the reality that Nazis promote inequality for minorities and King was promoting equality. This is no small detail for Delgado and Stefancic who underscore that ours is a constitutional system decidedly not neutral on equality. They offer us a theory of speech that prioritizes equality as a substantive right. And the guidance they provide may be more critical today than ever before.

* Related *

Symposium, “Equality-Based Perspectives on the Free Speech Norm — Twenty-First Century Considerations,” Wake Forest Law Review (2009) (introduction here)

→ Gilreath, ”Tell Your Faggot Friend He Owes Me $500 for My Broken Hand’: Thoughts on a Substantive Equality Theory of Free Speech,'” Wake Forest Law Review (2009)

→ Delgado & Stefanic, “Four Observations About Hate Speech,” Wake Forest Law Review (2009)

“Polish President signs controversial Holocaust bill into law”

The bill’s backers say talking about Polish complicity in Nazi genocide is a form of group defamation.

President Andrzej Duda (credit Janek Skarzynski/AFP/Getty Images)

This from James Masters over at CNN: “Polish President Andrzej Duda signed Poland’s controversial new Holocaust bill late Tuesday ahead of it being assessed by the country’s Constitutional Tribunal. The law would make it illegal to accuse the nation of complicity in crimes committed by Nazi Germany, including the Holocaust. It would also ban the use of terms such as “Polish death camps” in relation to Auschwitz and other such camps located in Nazi-occupied Poland….”

This from Jacob Sullum writing in Reason: “In Poland, as in several other European countries, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust. Soon, thanks to [the new law . . . will make it] a crime to discuss the Holocaust too frankly.”

“The . . . ban on references to Polish complicity in Nazi genocide, which has provoked outrage in Israel and around the world, may seem inconsistent with the ban on Holocaust denial. But the two taboos are of a piece with each other and with Poland’s prohibition of ethnic insults—a fact that should give pause to American fans of European-style speech regulation.”

“The Polish [law] makes it a crime, punishable by fines and up to three years in prison, to accuse ‘the Polish nation, or the Polish state, of being responsible or complicit in the Nazi crimes committed by the Third German Reich.’ The legislation was motivated largely by anger at the common use of phrases like ‘Polish death camps,’ which could be read to mean that the war crimes committed by Germans in occupied Poland were a project of the Polish government.”

“‘German Nazi crimes are attributed to Poles,” Deputy Justice Minister Patryk Jaki complained . . . . ‘And so far the Polish state has not been able to effectively fight these types of insults to the Polish nation.'”

“Some of these ‘insults’ happen to be true, since part of ‘the Polish nation’ was “complicit in the Nazi crimes.’ Poles saved Jews, but Poles also murdered Jews, under Nazi instruction and on their own initiative. . . .”

→  Atika Shubert & Antonia Mortensen, Polish Holocaust law sows ‘distortions,’ Poland’s chief rabbi says, CNN, Feb. 9, 2018 (includes video feed)

→  JTA, Poland isn’t the only country censoring speech about the Holocaust, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 7, 2018

“New Slate Of Commissioners Should Elevate FTC’s Consideration of  First Amendment” Read More

0

FAN 177 (First Amendment News) “Make No Law” First Amendment Podcast Series Launched

Over at Popehat a new First Amendment podcast series has been launched; it’s titled “Make No Law” and is hosted on the Legal Talk Network. The podcasts are conducted by Kenneth P. White, a criminal defense and First Amendment lawyer at Brown White & Osborn.

“In the podcast, we explore the background, personalities, and social and historical context of some of America’s most important First Amendment cases. What made Walter Chaplinsky so angry that he uttered his famous “fighting words” in New Hampshire, and why was a crowd so angry at him? Why did Mary Beth Tinker decide to wear a black armband to school? What made Richard Ceballos’ supervisors retaliate against him for raising concerns about police misconduct, and how did he fight back? Who gets to decide whether a trademark like “The Slants” is offensive to a group — members of the group, or the government?”

Kenneth P. White

“Through interviews of some of the participants, historians, and experts, primary documents read by voice actors, and commentary, Ken White will explain both what these cases mean for your rights today, and what they meant to the real people who fought for their rights to produce these decisions. Every episode will be accompanied by a post here at Popehat with links to supporting materials: cases, oral argument recordings, historical materials, and so on. As the series progresses, we hope that you will send in your First Amendment questions and your suggestions for cases to cover.

“You can get the episodes on iTunes or Google Play, Soundcloud, or at the Legal Talk Network, or listen to them through a link right here on the blog. There’s also the RSS feed.”

First two episodes: Chaplinsky & Tinker 

(In this inaugural episode White explores the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case and the ensuing “fighting words” doctrine, which is often cited in disputes over free speech in the United States.)

(White dives into the Tinker v. Des Moines case and how it has impacted freedom of speech for students on campuses today.)

Forthcoming episodes: Ceballos Matal v. Tam 

  • Episode Three: “On The Job”:  How do the courts balance the free speech rights of government employees with the need to maintain discipline in government workplaces?  I interview Richard Ceballos, a Deputy District Attorney who faced retaliation for questioning a search warrant, and whose case articulated a troubling rule for government employees.
  • Episode Four, “Disparagement, Contempt, and Disrepute”:  I interview Simon Tam of the band The Slants about his recent Supreme Court victory and the trademark process that, despite what he and his fans thought, told him his band’s name was racist and unacceptable.

California Superior Court Upholds First Amendment Claim in Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case Read More

0

FAN 176 (First Amendment News) Arizona State University to Host Major Conference on “Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity”

As you can see from the two news items mentioned below, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University continues to make its presence known (and in big ways) in the First Amendment community.  Recall that last October the Law School co-hosted, with New York University Law School, an impressive conference to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in  Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917).

And the folks at the SDOC College of Law are doing it again as they partner with the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication to host a major conference on free speech:

Free & Open to the Public

Register at: scetl.asu.edu

Questions: email scetlevents@asu.edu or call (480) 965-0155

FRIDAY PROGRAM

Date: February 23, 2018

Location: ASU Tempe Campus, New Student Pavilion

Robert Post (Yale Daily News)

Opening Keynote Lecture

  • Robert Post
    Former Dean, Yale Law School
    “The Classic First Amendment Tradition Under Stress: Freedom of Speech and the University”

Panel: “Why Do Students Need Free Speech on Campus?”

Moderator: Nicole Taylor, Deputy Vice President, Dean of Students, ASU Tempe Campus

Panelists:

  • Zachary Wood, Williams College
  • Matthew Foldi, University of Chicago
  • and Students for Free Expression Gabriel Sandler, Arizona State University
    Téa Francesca Price, Arizona State University

Professor Harvey Mansfield (Harvard Gazette)

Panel: “Free Inquiry and the Philosophy of Higher Education”

Moderator: Daniel Cullen, Professor, Rhodes College

Panelists:

  • Jim Stoner, Louisiana State University
  • Harvey Mansfield, Harvard University
  • Norma Thompson, Yale University

Professor Richard Garnett

Panel: “Intellectual Diversity and Higher Education: A Crisis?”

Moderator: Cristine Legare, Associate Professor, University of Texas, Austin

Panelists:

  • Joshua Dunn, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
  • Neil Gross, Colby College
  • Richard Garnett, University of Notre Dame, Law School

Plenary Address

  • Jeremy Waldron, University Professor, New York University Heckling in a University Setting      “Heckling in a University Setting”

SATURDAY PROGRAM

Date: February 24, 2018

Location: ASU Downtown Campus, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, BCLS 544

Heather McDonald

Panel: Negotiating Controversial Speakers on Campus

Moderator: Stefanie Lindquist, Deputy Provost, Academic Affairs and Professor, ASU

Panelists

  • Heather MacDonald, Manhattan Institute
  • Bret Weinstein, Evergreen College
    Ulrich Baer, Professor, New York University

Professor James Weinstein

Panel: Freedom of Speech and Thought on Campus: What Role for the First Amendment?

Moderator: James Weinstein, Dan Cracchiolo Chair in Constitutional Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, ASU

Panelists

  • Azhar Majeed, Vice President, FIRE
  • Donald Downs, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Laura Beth Nielsen, Northwestern University, and American Bar Foundation

Professor Larry Alexander

Panel: State Legislative Remedies to Free Speech Challenges on Campus: Are They Consistent with Academic Freedom?

Moderator: Mike Liburdi, General Counsel, AZ Governor Doug Ducey, and adjunct Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

  • Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
  • James Manley, Goldwater Institute
  • Larry Alexander, University of San Diego School of Law

Read More

24

The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights

One thought that follows from my talk the other day at the National Archives is the role that the Second Amendment plays in our understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Until the last few decades, my research shows that people did not talk much about the Second Amendment when they discussed the Bill of Rights. This is not true now, of course. I wonder to what extent support for the right to bear arms protects the Bill of Rights from the erosion of support that we see in other American ideals. Granted, even without the Second Amendment the Bill of Rights would have a lot to offer for those who own or enjoy guns, but perhaps that would not be enough for some.

More broadly, I’ve been thinking lately about how support for one part of the Bill of Rights shapes other parts. The answer is some, but how much?

0

FAN 175 (First Amendment News) Seattle University Law School to host Conference on Artificial Intelligence — includes panel on Robotic Speech

Be sure to have Alexa, or Echo, or Seri, or your Google Mini save the date for an important upcoming conference on artificial intelligence. On Saturday, February 17, 2018, from 9 am to 5 pm, Seattle University Law School will host a conference titled:

Singularity: Artificial Intelligence & the Law    (Casey Commons, Seattle University)

Welcome Remarks from Dean Annette Clark

Keynote Speaker: Ryan Calo, University of Washington School of Law

Panel 1, Robotic Speech and the First Amendment: David Skover, Seattle University School of Law; Helen Norton, University of Colorado Law School; Bruce Johnson, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine. (This panel will discuss the issues raised in the forthcoming Collins & Skover book Robotica: Speech Rights & Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, May 2018), and will be moderated by Seattle University Law Professor Gregory Silverman.)

Panel 2, Accountability for the Actions of Robots: Ryan Calo, University of Washington School of Law; Elizabeth Joh, UC-Davis School of Law (This panel will focus on Professor Calo’s research into the liability consequences when robots cause harm; a third panelist confirmation is still pending.)

Panel 3, Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence: Justin Tiehen, University of Puget Sound; Ariela Tubert, University of Puget Sound; Mark Van Hollebeke, Director of Privacy, Microsoft. (This panel features will consider discreet issues in AI with an emphasis on the ethical issues in evaluating new technologies, including where ethical and legal considerations intersect.)

Cato to host panel on Janus v. American Federation Read More

0

FAN 174.2 (First Amendment News) Floyd Abrams Institute: Call for Abstracts for Scholars’ Conference

Call for Abstracts & Participants: Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference

The Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression invites applications to participate in the sixth annual Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference (FESC).

 Conference Date: The conference will be held at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut from April 27–29, 2018.

→ Response Date: All those interested in presenting a paper or commenting on a paper respond by February 23, 2018.

At FESC, scholars and practitioners discuss works-in-progress on the freedoms of speech, expression, press, association, petition, and assembly as well as on related issues of knowledge and information policy. FESC has become a fixture on the calendar of leading First Amendment thinkers and scholars nationwide.

The paper titles and attendees from prior conferences are available here:

→ Workshop Sessions: Each accepted paper is assigned to a discussant, who will summarize the paper for the workshop audience, provide feedback, and lead a discussion. Workshop sessions are typically lively discussions among authors, discussants, and participants. Sessions run from Saturday morning through Sunday afternoon, with a welcome dinner on Friday evening. Conference participants are expected to read the papers in advance and to attend the entire conference.

Papers are accepted on a wide array of freedom of expression and information policy topics. Although participation at the conference is by invitation only, we welcome paper proposals from scholars, practitioners, and free speech advocates all over the world. Please feel free to share this call for submissions widely.

→ Abstract Submissions & Due Date: Titles and abstracts of papers should be submitted electronically to Heather Branch no later than February 23, 2018.

→ For Additional Information: Those interested in attending the conference or acting as a discussant should also contact Heather Branch no later than February 23, 2018.

→ Due Date for Completed Papers: Workshop versions of accepted papers will be due on March 30, 2018, so that they can be circulated to discussants and other conference participants.

→ Travel & Accommodations: Participants will ask their home institutions to cover travel expenses. However, thanks to a generous donation from the Stanton Foundation, we are able to offer Abrams Travel Fellowships to cover some of the costs associated flights, lodging, and reasonable travel expenses for presenters and discussants who would not otherwise be able to attend. This fellowship is intended to encourage submissions from junior faculty and lawyers. Should you be invited to participate as an author or discussant, please inform us in your response whether you will require Abrams Travel Fellowship funding.

→ For Additional Information: Re questions: contact Heather Branch.

0

FAN 174 (First Amendment News) Special Issue on Legal History — New article “reorients our understanding of the history of speech and press freedoms”

According to the most famous words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” But what did the founders understand those words to mean? A remarkable answer comes from Jud Campbell, a University of Richmond law professor, who has just produced what might well be the most illuminating work on the original understanding of free speech in a generation. In brief, Campbell argues that the founders meant to protect a lot less speech than most of us think.

Cass Sunstein, The Originalism Blog

Leonard W. Levy (1923-2006)

History forever haunts us. Even if it did not, there is always that temptation to look into the rear-view mirror to catch a fleeting glimpse of the world of the dead. Even some of the great who wrote about the dead are themselves now dead. Remember this constitutional historian?

Still, the living continue to dig up the dead and tell their stories . . . as best they can frame them. For example,

Of course, there is more, much more. That said, there’s a new player in the First-Amendment-history town; he is Professor Jud Campbell and he has an impressive new article in the Yale Law Journal. It is titled

Natural Rights and the First Amendment

ABSTRACT. The Supreme Court often claims that the First Amendment reflects an original judgment about the proper scope of expressive freedom. After a century of academic debate, however, the meanings of speech and press freedoms at the Founding remain remarkably hazy. Many scholars, often pointing to Founding Era sedition prosecutions, emphasize the limited scope of these rights. Others focus on the libertarian ideas that helped shape opposition to the Sedition Act of 1798. Still more claim that speech and press freedoms lacked any commonly accepted meaning. The relationship between speech and press freedoms is contested, too. Most scholars view these freedoms as equivalent, together enshrining a freedom of expression. But others assert that the freedom of speech, unlike press freedom, emerged from the legislative privilege of speech and debate, thus providing more robust protection for political speech.

Professor Jud Campbell

This Article argues that Founding Era elites shared certain understandings of speech and press freedoms, as concepts, even when they divided over how to apply those concepts. In particular, their approach to expressive freedom was grounded in a multifaceted understanding of natural rights that no longer survives in American constitutional thought. Speech and press freedoms referred, in part, to natural rights that were expansive in scope but weak in their legal effect, allowing for restrictions of expression to promote the public good. In this respect, speech and press freedoms were equivalent concepts with highly contestable implications that depended on calculations of the public good. But expressive freedom connoted more determinate legal protections as well. The liberty of the press, for instance, often referred specifically to the rule against press licensing, while the freedom of speaking, writing, and publishing ensured that well-intentioned statements of one’s views were immune from governmental regulation. In this respect, speech and press freedoms carried distinct meanings. Much of our modern confusion stems from how the Founders—immersed in their own constitutional language—silently shifted between these complementary frames of reference.

This framework significantly reorients our understanding of the history of speech and press freedoms by recognizing the multifaceted meanings of these concepts, and it raises challenging questions about how we might use that history today. Various interpretive theories—including ones described as “originalist”—might incorporate this history in diverse ways, with potentially dramatic implications for a host of First Amendment controversies. Most fundamentally, however, history undercuts the Supreme Court’s recent insistence that the axioms of modern doctrine inhere in the Speech Clause itself, with judges merely discovering—not crafting—the First Amendment’s contours and boundaries.

Nico Perrino over at FIRE interviews Professor Campbell in a So to Speak podcast

Newly Posted Historial Documents Read More

0

New Book — Manheim & Watts, “The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law”

A comprehensive and accurate description of the powers of the President of the United States. The book is intended primarily to benefit non-lawyers in understanding the sources and limits of the President’s powers, and their means of influencing his actions, but the work will be enlightening for lawyers as well.

Justice John Paul Stevens (ret.) 

Both a primer and a sophisticated analysis of the constantly evolving balance of power between the President, the Congress, and the Judiciary.

— U.S. Senator Slade Gorton

Two of my distinguished University of Washington Law School colleagues, Lisa Manheim and Kathryn Watts, have just released a unique and impressive book entitled The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law ($7.99 paper) ($2.99 e-book, free with Kindle Unlimited subscriptions via Amazon.). Here is the abstract:

“This one-of-a-kind guide provides a crash course in the laws governing the President of the United States. In engaging and accessible prose, two law professors explain the principles that inform everything from President Washington’s disagreements with Congress to President Trump’s struggles with the courts, and more. Timely and to the point, this guide provides the essential information every informed civic participant needs to know about the laws that govern the president–and what those laws mean for those who want to make their voices heard.”

* * * *

I’ve read this book.  It is a quite accessible and highly reliable overview of the law of presidential power. Here is some of the advance buzz about the book:

This smart and indispensable guide begins where old-fashioned civics leaves off, and talks to troubled and puzzled Americans as adults. The authors demonstrate that the future of our democracy is where it’s always been: in our hands, if only we learn how to invoke the available limits on the power of the president. –Linda Greenhouse 

Prof. Lisa Manheim

Lisa Manheim and Kathryn Watts have written a wonderful book on presidential power, its scope, and its limits. The book is clearly written and easily accessible and is terrific in explaining the authority of the President and the checks on his power. The book is especially timely now, but it is about issues that have arisen since the beginning of the country and that will last as long as the Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky 

The authors have provided a truly impressive chapter on climate change that is both sweeping and compelling, and have done so with crystal clarity and gripping narrative drive. As a result, the climate change chapter, like the rest of this book, offers every reader not only a ready understanding of a vital and complex issue and of the varying roles the government has played in shaping the issue, but also of the opportunity–for better or worse–that stakeholders and members of the public have to shape U.S. climate change policy going forward. If this is the only piece on climate change policy that a person reads, then he or she will be very well-informed and well-equipped to engage with the issue. — Joseph Goffman 

Prof. Kathryn Watts

A concise and crisp primer on the limitations of presidential power. The subject is timely and well worth pondering. This work should interest students concerned with law and the separation of powers and American politics, as well as the general public. — David M. O’Brien

In America, no one is above the law, not even the president. For anyone who has ever wondered ‘can he really do that?’ this clear and concise book on presidential power is a must read. Likewise, for everyone who cares about democracy and the rule of law, Watts and Manheim are your best guides to effective citizenship. — Kellye Testy

Accessible and interesting, this book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand both the powers of the presidency and the limits on presidential power. Brianne Gorod 
0

FAN 173.2 (First Amendment News) First Amendment Clinic Coming to Vanderbilt Law // Full-time Director Sought

Vanderbilt University Law School seeks applicants for a full-time clinical faculty position. The successful applicant will design and direct a First Amendment Clinic focused on speech, press, and assembly rights. In addition to teaching a live-client clinic, the successful applicant will also have the opportunity to teach a non-clinical course and to engage in writing as well as community and professional service.

The First Amendment Clinic is funded for an initial five-year period, after which continuation is contingent on securing additional funding.

Please send a cover letter, resume, clinic proposal/research agenda, and list of references to:

   http://apply.interfolio.com/48179

→ This from an e-mail from Professor Terry A. Maroney: Under the TN student practice rule, clinic representation is limited to persons or entities who cannot otherwise obtain counsel – so, as a general matter, this would be focused on speech, assembly, and press claims raised by poor persons, children (e.g., expression rights at school), and community organizations. Our ideal candidate is someone with a passion for free speech, meaningful litigation experience, and direct experience in teaching and mentoring law students. Other than the soft-money aspect, we anticipate that the First Amendment clinical professor would enjoy the same benefits of all our other clinical professors (e.g., non-tenure-track, with term contracts, but eligible for promotion from Assistant to Associate to full). Salary is competitive with our entry-level clinical range. I am hoping to identify someone to start this summer in anticipation of being in place for the new school year.

The final candidate for this position must successfully complete a background check. Vanderbilt University has a strong institutional commitment to recruiting and retaining an academically and culturally diverse community of faculty. Minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and members of other underrepresented groups, in particular, are encouraged to apply. Vanderbilt is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.