Home
Videos uploaded by user “The Federalist Society”
What is Multisig Technology?
 
02:57
How do you keep your digital currency safe? Jerry Brito, Executive Director of the Coin Center, explains how multisignature technology provides increased security for digital currencies such as Bitcoin. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow Jerry Brito on Twitter: @jerrybrito https://twitter.com/jerrybrito Related links: What is Multi-Sig, and What Can It Do? https://coincenter.org/entry/what-is-multi-sig-and-what-can-it-do The best multisignature wallets for 2016 https://bravenewcoin.com/news/the-best-multisignature-wallets-for-2016/ The Wretched, Endless Cycle of Bitcoin Hacks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/the-wretched-endless-cycle-of-bitcoin-hacks
Views: 45523 The Federalist Society
Murphy v. NCAA [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:12
Does a federal law against sports betting prohibit the state of New Jersey from legalizing it? Damon Root, Senior Editor at Reason magazine, explains the issues at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court case, Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case was formerly named Christie v. NCAA. JUDGMENT: May 14, 2018. Reversed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and in which Justice Breyer joined in part. HOLDING: When a state completely or partially repeals old laws banning sports gambling schemes, it "authorizes" those schemes under PASPA, but PASPA's provision prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violates the anticommandeering rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow Damon Root: https://twitter.com/damonroot @damonroot Related links: Christie v. NCAA on Oyez https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476 High stakes for federalism in heavyweight clash over the anti-commandeering doctrine http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-high-stakes-federalism-heavyweight-clash-anti-commandeering-doctrine/ Even if Christie v. NCAA lets us gamble more, we should have the sense to gamble less https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/even-if-christie-v-ncaa-lets-us-gamble-more-we-should-have-the-sense-to-gamble-less/2017/11/26/b8e845fe-d164-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.9583f88941ca In sports-betting case, the Supreme Court should bet on federalism http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-sports-betting-case-supreme-court-bet-federalism/
Views: 31864 The Federalist Society
Collins v. Virginia [SCOTUSbrief]
 
03:51
Matt Fitzgerald, a partner at McGuireWoods, discusses the tension between the Fourth Amendment and the "automobile exception" in the upcoming Supreme Court case, Collins v. Virginia. JUDGMENT: May 29, 2018. Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. HOLDING: The automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1027_7lio.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Learn more about Matt Fitzgerald: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/People/F/Matthew-A-Fitzgerald.aspx Related links: SCOTUSblog: Collins v. Virginia http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/collins-v-virginia/ Cars, other vehicles and the Constitution https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cars-other-vehicles-and-the-constitution The US Supreme Court Considers the Scope of the Automobile Exception https://verdict.justia.com/2017/10/11/us-supreme-court-considers-scope-automobile-exception Differing Views: A Few Thoughts on Collins v. Virginia http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/03/a-few-thoughts-on-collins-v-virginia Warrantless Searches of Automobiles on Private Property https://www.radford.edu/content/cj-bulletin/home/june--2017--vol-2--no--2-/warrantless-searches-of-automobiles-on-private-property.html The Automobile Exception and the Private Driveway http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/10/the-automobile-exception-and-private.html
Views: 45379 The Federalist Society
Exploring Federalist 51: Separation of Powers
 
03:11
How does the U.S. Constitution promote liberty? This video essay explores the insights from Federalist 51 about the role that structural safeguards play in promoting freedom--in particular, checks and balances. This project is part of the Federalist Society’s Article I Initiative, which explores the proper role of Congress according to its constitutional design. To learn more, please visit the Article I Initiative website: https://fedsoc.org/articlei. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. RELATED LINKS Federalist 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-51 Why James Madison thought ambition was a good thing https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-james-madison-thought-ambition-was-a-good-thing Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Complete Works, vol. 1 (The Spirit of Laws) [1748] http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/montesquieu-complete-works-vol-1-the-spirit-of-laws Would you have been a Federalist or anti-Federalist? http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/would-you-have-been-a-federalist-or-an-anti-federalist-2/
Views: 71267 The Federalist Society
Carpenter v. United States [SCOTUSbrief]
 
03:51
Does the Fourth Amendment allow for a warrantless search and seizure of cellphone location data by the police? Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, outlines the issues at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. United States. JUDGMENT: June 22, 2018. Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. HOLDING: The government's warrantless acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf * * * * * * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow Ilya Shapiro: @ishapiro https://twitter.com/ishapiro Related Links: SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carpenter-v-united-states-2/ What the Founders Would Say About Cellphone Surveillance https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/location-tracking/what-founders-would-say-about-cellphone-surveillance Four Thoughts on the Briefing in Carpenter v. United States https://www.lawfareblog.com/four-thoughts-briefing-carpenter-v-united-states Carpenter v. United States and the positive law model https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/21/carpenter-v-united-states-and-the-positive-law-model/?utm_term=.4511e83be5f0
Views: 39892 The Federalist Society
Wickard v. Filburn: The Aggregation Principle & Congressional Power [No. 86]
 
04:40
Where does Congress get the power to regulate activities like a farmer's wheat yield? While the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, the application of the Commerce Clause has become increasingly broad. Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law explains the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Wickard v. Filburn, which established what is known as the aggregation principle. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Randy Barnett: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/randy-e-barnett/ Follow Randy Barnett on Twitter: @RandyEBarnett https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett Differing Views: At Heart of Health Law Clash, a 1942 Case of a Farmer’s Wheat https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/us/politics/at-center-of-health-care-fight-roscoe-filburns-1942-commerce-case.html Scalia Changes His Tune on Wickard and the Commerce Clause. Will It Matter for ObamaCare? http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/20/scalia-changes-his-tune-on-wickard-and-t Wickard v. Filburn (1942): The Institute for Justice http://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/programs/victims-of-abdication/wickard-v-filburn-1942/ Wickard v. Filburn in the US Constipedia http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/wickard-v-filburn-1942/ Is Anything Not Interstate Commerce? https://reason.com/archives/2005/09/09/is-anything-not-interstate-com
Views: 47936 The Federalist Society
The FISA Court: History, Purpose, and Controversy [No. 86]
 
04:40
In their fight against international terrorism, the United States intelligence community will at times conduct surveillance on suspected foreign agents. In order to do so, however, they need approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court. Does the FISA Court fulfill its role in overseeing government surveillance and preventing abuses? Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University explores the state of Americans' privacy in relation to this secretive court. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Follow Alex Abdo on Twitter @AlexanderAbdo https://twitter.com/AlexanderAbdo Learn more about Alex Abdo: https://knightcolumbia.org/directory/alex-abdo Differing Views: The Federalist Society: Is the FISA Court Too Secret? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1FhIjutbN8 CNN: What is the FISA court, and why is it so secretive? https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/fisa-court-explainer-trnd/index.html Cato Institute: The New FISA Reform Still Doesn't Protect Your Privacy https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/new-fisa-reform-still-doesnt-protect-privacy USA Today: FISA court 'works well as it is': Opposing view https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/18/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court--steven-bradbury-editorials-debates/2567025/ The New York Times: A Better Secret Court https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/opinion/a-better-secret-court.html
Views: 47529 The Federalist Society
Timbs v. Indiana [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:41
When Tyson Timbs had his $42,000 Land Rover seized through civil asset forfeiture by the state of Indiana for a crime with a maximum fine of $10,000, he claimed that this constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. However, the Supreme Court has not incorporated this clause under the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states. Should states be prohibited from using civil asset forfeiture to impose “excessive” fines? Vikrant Reddy of the Charles Koch Institute discusses the incorporation doctrine and civil asset forfeiture in Timbs v. Indiana. Oral argument is November 28, 2018. * * * * * * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. This episode of SCOTUSbrief is brought to you by the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group. Learn more and join the practice group at https://fedsoc.org/criminallaw. Learn more about Vikrant Reddy: https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/blog/charles-koch-institute-welcomes-criminal-justice-reform-expert-vikrant-p-reddy/ Follow Vikrant Reddy on Twitter @vpreddy https://twitter.com/vpreddy?lang=en * * * * * * * * * * Differing Views: The New York Times: “He Sold Drugs for $225. Indiana Took His $42,000 Land Rover.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/supreme-court-civil-asset-forfeiture.html The Yale Law Journal: “The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture” https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/the-constitutionality-of-civil-forfeiture University of Richmond Law Review: “The Concept of Incorporation” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5bb4/0ab1e28e8dcb0ed68430a1d42e2ae2d58fa8.pdf The Federalist Society: “Reconstructing First Principles: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution” https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=q2wOM70AdMU SCOTUSblog: “Argument preview: Justices to consider whether Eighth Amendment ban on ‘excessive fines’ applies to the states” http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-preview-justices-to-consider-whether-eighth-amendment-ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scotusblog%2FpFXs+%28SCOTUSblog%29
Views: 45812 The Federalist Society
Ohio v. American Express: The Decision [SCOTUSbrief]
 
05:18
How does antitrust law apply to multisided markets like credit card platforms and ridesharing companies? On June 25, the Supreme Court released its opinion in the case of Ohio v. American Express, which answered this very question. Professor Joshua D. Wright of Antonin Scalia Law School explains the opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, and how the Court established a simple test to determine whether there is an anticompetitive effect on merchants and/or cardholders. JUDGMENT: June 25, 2018. Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. HOLDING: American Express' anti-steering provisions do not violate federal antitrust law. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_new_1a72.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Prof. Joshua D. Wright: https://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/wright_joshua Follow Prof. Joshua D. Wright on Twitter: @ProfWrightGMU https://twitter.com/ProfWrightGMU Differing views: Supreme Court Grills Both Sides in States’ Challenge of American Express https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-grills-both-sides-in-states-challenge-of-american-express-1519689044 Ohio v. American Express Co. Antitrust Sherman Act Competition https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-1454 Ohio V. American Express: Do Monopoly Platforms Deserve Special Treatment Under Antitrust? https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2018/02/27/do-monopoly-platforms-deserve-special-treatment-under-antitrust-review-of-ohio-v-american-express/#24be28635b1d This Supreme Court Case Could Make Corporate Giants Even More Powerful https://www.thenation.com/article/this-supreme-court-case-could-make-corporate-giants-even-more-powerful/ Opinion analysis: Divided court defines credit-card networks as single two-sided market, rejecting antitrust challenge to anti-steering provision http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-divided-court-defines-credit-card-networks-as-single-two-sided-market-rejecting-antitrust-challenge-to-anti-steering-provision/
Views: 50813 The Federalist Society
McCoy v. Louisiana: The Decision [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:17
In 2011, a man named Robert McCoy was tried for a triple homicide in Louisiana. McCoy’s attorney, Larry English, ignored his client’s assertion of innocence in an effort to avoid the death penalty, admitting to one of the elements of the crime. McCoy claims that this strategy has violated his constitutional right to counsel. But what does the “right to counsel” in the Sixth Amendment mean? Zoë Root, a Senior Policy Advisor at American University, explores the issues in McCoy v. Louisiana. JUDGMENT: May 14, 2018. Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. HOLDING: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel's experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-8255_i4ek.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Zoë Root: https://www.american.edu/profiles/staff/zoeroot.cfm Differing Views: Legal Information Institute: McCoy v. Louisiana https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-8255 George Washington Law Review: McCoy v. Louisiana: New Challenges for Defenders, New Risks for the Mentally Ill https://www.gwlr.org/mccoy-v-louisiana-new-challenges/ Slate: Justice Ginsburg’s Groundbreaking Opinion in McCoy Revives Criminal Defendants’ Right to Autonomy https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/justice-ginsburgs-opinion-in-mccoy-v-louisiana-revives-criminal-defendants-right-to-autonomy.html The Atlantic: Can A Lawyer Declare His Client Guilty? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/should-lawyers-ever-force-their-clients-to-act-in-their-best-interest/560498/ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-mulls-whether-lawyer-can-admit-clients-guilt-to-try-to-avoid-death-penalty/article/2646210 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/us/politics/death-penalty-supreme-court-attorney.html https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/01/keeping-your-counsel https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-critical-of-lawyers-decision-to-concede-guilt-of-client-who-claimed-innocence/2018/01/17/0e33478a-fbb7-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.21dcf691a534 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/when-does-the-right-to-an-attorney-kick-in/539898/
Views: 43607 The Federalist Society
How Does a Case End Up at the Supreme Court? [No. 86]
 
02:58
The Supreme Court of the United States hears about 80 cases a year, just 1% of the requests it receives. But how does a case end up at the Supreme Court? Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals expounds on the journey of a court case, from a trial court to the "Highest Court in the Land." As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Learn more about Judge Ginsburg: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+DHG Related Links: United States Courts: Supreme Court Procedures http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1 University of Pennsylvania Law Review: Nonmajority Rules and the Supreme Court http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3907&context=penn_law_review The Supreme Court Historical Society: Types of Cases the Court Hears http://supremecourthistory.org/htcw_casesthecourthears.html
Views: 54579 The Federalist Society
What DON’T you know about Alexander Hamilton?
 
03:02
http://fedsoc.org | Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell discusses some of the surprising facts you might not know about the face of the $10 bill. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. EXPERT: Michael W. McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. Director, Stanford Constitutional Law Center. Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2002-2009).
Views: 126618 The Federalist Society
Positive Law v. Natural Law [Introduction to Common Law]
 
01:32
Is positive law always a force for good? Professor Richard Epstein of NYU School of Law argues that the positive law works for the good when it follows natural law principles and that natural law gives us a powerful framework to criticize particular legal systems (such as those permitting slavery). Professor Epstein, in this series on the Common Law, provides an alternative to the conventional view that property rights are arbitrarily created by the state, and therefore can be changed at will by the state. A few simple rules, he argues, are universal principles of social organization, consistent across time and culture, which form the basis of social gains. Professor Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. Subscribe to the series’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUX3i5tMPI9kDQtoLuOXCsN_ Links Richard Epstein: Simple Rules for a Complex World http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674808218 The Myth of “Natural Law” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/iain-macsaorsa-the-myth-of-natural-law Justice Story, Slavery and the Natural Law Foundations of American Constitutionalism http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4556&context=uclrev Barney Reynolds: Natural Law versus Positivism: The Fundamental Conflict https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-abstract/13/4/441/1532860/Natural-Law-versus-Positivism-The-Fundamental?redirectedFrom=PDF Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory http://www.nlnrac.org/critics/legal-positivism
Views: 56442 The Federalist Society
Sentencing Reform in America: An Overview and Conversation [POLICYbrief]
 
04:19
The United States has five percent of the world’s population but twenty-five percent of the world’s prison population. Reformers argue that these numbers reflect our country’s growing incarceration problem, while other experts point to the drastic reduction in violent crime over the past three decades as proof that tough on crime tactics work. Does the US have a mass incarceration problem or a crime problem? Do criminals receive unjust sentences? Have mandatory minimums and other tactics led to safer communities? Two experts, Steven H. Cook of the Department of Justice and Professor Shon Hopwood of Georgetown Law, discuss sentencing reform in the first video of a POLICYbrief series on criminal justice. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Prof. Shon Hopwood: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/shon-hopwood/ Follow Prof. Hopwood on Twitter: @shonhopwood https://twitter.com/@shonhopwood Learn more about Steven H. Cook: https://fedsoc.org/contributors/steven-cook Differing Views & Related Links: The Dangerous Myths of Drug Sentencing “Reform” https://www.naausa.org/site/index.php/resources/white-papers/90-jul-2015-dangerous-myths-of-drug-sentencing-reform/file The Dangerous Myths of NAAUSA: A Response to the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys’ Paper Titled “The Dangerous Myths of Drug Sentencing ‘Reform’” https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/272732500-FAMM-Response-to-NAAUSA-Myths.pdf The Dangerous Myths of Drug Sentencing “Reform”: A Response to FAMM https://www.naausa.org/site/index.php/resources/misc/105-aug-2015-response-to-famm/file Sentencing reform is moving in the wrong direction https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/386443-sentencing-reform-is-moving-in-the-wrong-direction Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/reconsidering-mandatory-minimum-sentences-the-arguments-and-against SOURCE: Violent crime and homicide rate graph: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/04/jeff-sessions/violent-crime-some-still-well-historical-highs/
Views: 34138 The Federalist Society
Capitalism v. Cronyism: Why Can't You Buy a Tesla in Utah? [POLICYbrief]
 
03:59
The Utah Supreme Court recently ruled 5-0 against Tesla being able to sell directly to consumers. Attorney Greg Reed of the Institute for Justice discusses the laws that regulate auto sales in Utah and many other states. Reach Greg Reed on Twitter: @GrReedJD http://twitter.com/GRReedJD As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Related Links: Auto dealers chief warns of Tesla direct sales model https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/10/06/auto-dealers-chief-warns-teslas-direct-sales-model/91649750/ Utah’s Supreme Court Says Tesla Can’t Sell Vehicles Directly To Consumers https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/06/utahs-supreme-court-says-tesla-cant-sell-vehicles-directly-consumers/ Elon Musk Can't Sell His Teslas in Texas http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/07/19/why-tesla-cant-sell-cars-in-texas Missouri court rules against Tesla selling at its own dealerships in the state https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/07/missouri-court-rules-against-tesla-selling-at-its-own-dealerships-in-the-state/ Tesla weighs challenge to direct-sales bans http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-weighs-challenge-to-direct-sales-bans-2016-03-28-174852423 Direct-to-consumer auto sales: It’s not just about Tesla https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2015/05/direct-consumer-auto-sales-its-not-just-about-tesla
Views: 371922 The Federalist Society
Herrera v. Wyoming [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:37
When a Crow hunter crossed from the Crow Reservation into Bighorn National Forest, the state of Wyoming arrested him for illegal hunting. The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, however, guarantees to the Crow Tribe the use of their traditional homeland to hunt, fish, and gather, as long as those lands remained unoccupied. Did Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of Bighorn National Forest abrogate the Fort Laramie Treaty? Is a national forest “unoccupied” land? Troy Eid of Greenberg Traurig, LLP explains the complexities of Indian treaty rights in Herrera v. Wyoming. Oral argument is January 8, 2019. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Troy Eid: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/e/eid-troy-a Related Links & Differing Views: U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs: “Frequently Asked Questions” https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions National Conference of State Legislatures: “Supreme Court to Decide Off-Reservation Hunting Case” http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/09/11/supreme-court-to-decide-off-reservation-hunting-case.aspx Ecology Law Quarterly: “Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians” https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context=elq Buffalo Field Campaign: “1868 Fort Laramie Treaty” http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/legal/tribalbriefing/1868fortlaramie.html
Views: 34435 The Federalist Society
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:58
The world of retail changed forever in 1994 when the first online retailers entered the marketplace. In just two decades, online retail has exploded into to a $453-billion-dollar industry. However, due to a Supreme Court case from 1992 called Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, states and municipalities cannot impose a use tax on merchandise from these out-of-state retailers, depriving local governments of a key stream of revenue. Is the ruling in Quill obsolete? Or are there sufficient reliance interests to justify continuing the physical presence rule? Allyson Ho, a partner at Morgan Lewis, discusses state sales taxes and stare decisis in South Dakota v. Wayfair. JUDGMENT: June 21, 2018. Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. HOLDING: Because the physical presence rule of Quill is unsound and incorrect, Quill Corp v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill. are overruled. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Allyson Ho: https://www.morganlewis.com/bios/aho Differing Views: Reason: The Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court Takes Up Internet Sales Tax Conundrum http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/20/supreme-court-takes-up-internet-sales-ta Vox: The Supreme Court is about to decide how your online purchases are taxed https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/13/16888028/supreme-court-online-tax-amazon The Hill: The next tax reform: Internet sales tax http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/369157-the-next-tax-reform-internet-sales-tax Notre Dame Law School Scholarship: Precedent and Reliance https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1706&context=law_faculty_scholarship
Views: 29372 The Federalist Society
Humphrey's Executor & Executive Appointments [No. 86]
 
05:23
In 1935, the Supreme Court decided a landmark case which established that the dismissal of a federal commissioner by the President on policy grounds was unjustified. Gregory Jacob explains the case of Humphrey's Executor v. United States and how its application affects our interpretation of the power and role of the executive branch. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Gregory Jacob: https://www.omm.com/professionals/gregory-f-jacob/ Differing views: We Need Special Court Procedure for the Removal of Special Counsels https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-need-special-court-procedure-removal-special-counsels Debunking Humphrey’s Executor https://www.gwlr.org/debunking-humphreys-executor/ Would a Justice Kavanaugh Overturn Humphrey’s Executor and Declare Independent Agencies Unconstitutional? http://yalejreg.com/nc/would-a-justice-kavanaugh-overturn-humphreys-executor-and-declare-independent-agencies-unconstitutional/ Humphrey’s Executor Squared: Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and its Implications for Administrative Law Judges https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol37/iss2/3/
Views: 29305 The Federalist Society
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: A Landmark Case for Free Speech [No. 86]
 
03:47
Are political ads protected under the First Amendment? In this episode of No. 86, Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law explains how New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), a landmark Supreme Court case, transformed our understanding of libel law. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow the Eugene Volokh on Twitter: @VolokhC https://twitter.com/VolokhC Related Links: Oyez: New York Times v. Sullivan https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 DC Bar: Window to the Past: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2014-nyt-sullivan.cfm ABA Journal: 50 years after New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, do courts still value journalists’ watchdog role? http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/50_years_after_new_york_times_v._sullivan_do_courts_still_value_journalists Washington Post: Antonin Scalia hates ‘NYT v. Sullivan’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2012/12/04/antonin-scalia-hates-nyt-v-sullivan/?utm_term=.abd3f7dddc6f The Atlantic: The Civil Rights Heroes the Court Ignored in New York Times v. Sullivan https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/the-civil-rights-heroes-the-court-ignored-in-em-new-york-times-v-sullivan-em/284550/ Chicago Unbound: Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong? http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2295&context=journal_articles
Views: 33591 The Federalist Society
Regulatory Takings Law:  Penn Central v. City of New York
 
03:05
Why is a state or local government more likely to prevail against a landowner in a regulatory takings dispute? Eric Claeys, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, gives an overview of the dispute in Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York 438 U.S. 104 (1978), the leading case in regulatory takings law. In this case, a New York court held that Penn Central had not suffered a regulatory taking when the City of New York prevented it from building office space above the station because they still had some use of the property. This case also established a three-part balancing test for measuring compensation in regulatory takings cases. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Related links: Oyez: Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-444 Making Sense of Penn Central - Environmental Law Reporter http://www.gelpi.org/gelpi/current_research/documents/RT_Pubs_Law_MakingSensePennCentral.pdf Chip Mellor: How Penn Central Derailed Property Rights https://www.forbes.com/2011/06/27/penn-central-private-property.html Argument analysis: Justices search for a common denominator in takings case http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-justices-search-common-denominator-takings-case/
Views: 32008 The Federalist Society
Common Law and the State of Nature [Introduction to Common Law]
 
02:53
How does the social contract work? Professor Richard Epstein of NYU School of Law gives an overview of the transition from the state of nature to the state. In this series on the Common Law, Professor Epstein provides an alternative to the conventional view that property rights are arbitrarily created by the state, and therefore can be changed at will by the state. A few simple rules, he argues, are universal principles of social organization, consistent across time and culture, which form the basis of social gains. Professor Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Subscribe to the series’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUX3i5tMPI9kDQtoLuOXCsN_ Related links: Richard Epstein: The Utilitarian Foundations of Natural Law http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=journal_articles Social Contract Theory in American Case Law http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=faculty_scholarship Locke’s Political Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ John Locke and the Inadequacies of Social Contract Theory http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/07/3583/
Views: 31311 The Federalist Society
Why Read Tocqueville?
 
03:23
What can a nineteenth-century Frenchman teach us about modern America? Author James Poulos presents his case for reading Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." In "The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves" (2017), journalist and scholar James Poulos translates Tocqueville’s advice for a contemporary audience, illuminating us on how Tocqueville views the relationship friendship between friendship and freedom in today's society. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow James Poulos on Twitter: @jamespoulos https://twitter.com/jamespoulos Related links: The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves https://www.amazon.com/Art-Being-Free-Tocqueville-Ourselves/dp/1250077184 The Art Of Living And Writing Freely Can Save Us From Ourselves http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/13/living-writing-freely-save-ourselves/ In Place of the American Restlessness That Tocqueville Noted, Complacency http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447585/yuval-levin-modern-age-tyler-cowan-robert-nisbet-alexis-de-tocqueville-american-restlessness What Would Alexis de Tocqueville Have Made of the 2016 US Presidential Election? https://www.thenation.com/article/what-would-have-alexis-de-tocqueville-have-made-of-the-2016-us-presidential-election/
Views: 35454 The Federalist Society
What Is Self-Ownership? [Introduction to Common Law]
 
02:25
On what basis are individuals able to acquire property or enter into contracts? Professor Richard Epstein of NYU School of Law argues that the principle of self-ownership underlies the basis of other rights and that any alternative to self-ownership is unthinkable. He also discusses how the harm principle deals with the scope of freedom that autonomous individuals have one to another. Professor Epstein, in this series on the Common Law, provides an alternative to the conventional view that property rights are arbitrarily created by the state, and therefore can be changed at will by the state. A few simple rules, he argues, are universal principles of social organization, consistent across time and culture, which form the basis of social gains. Professor Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Subscribe to the series’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUX3i5tMPI9kDQtoLuOXCsN_ Related links: Richard Epstein: Principles for a Free Society Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/epstein-free.html Paul A. Weissman: Let it Be (Book Review) http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/01/reviews/981101.01weissmt.html?mcubz=0 Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/ BigThink: Allowing People to Harm Themselves http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/allowing-people-to-harm-themselves The Collapse of the Harm Principle http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7037&context=jclc
Views: 43325 The Federalist Society
No More Warrantless Cell Searches, Unless You Consent
 
02:44
On June 25 the Supreme Court unanimously decided Riley v. California, a case involving the authority of police to search the contents of cell phones they take from people they have arrested without a warrant. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that searching digital information on a cell phone ordinarily requires a warrant even if the arrestee is carrying it at the time of arrest. The decision consolidates two cases: Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. Orin Kerr (George Washington University Law School) discusses the case.
The Great Dissent: Justice Scalia's Opinion in Morrison v. Olson
 
15:05
Thirty years after the decision in Morrison v. Olson, questions raised in Justice Antonin Scalia’s lone dissent continue to inform legal debate on the separation of powers and the unitary executive. Some scholars consider Justice Scalia’s dissent to be his finest opinion. What can today’s law school students learn from Scalia’s dissent? Did Justice Scalia err in his reasoning? How do the issues still resonate in American politics today? Professor Gary Lawson of Boston University School of Law, Professor Richard Pildes of New York University School of Law, and Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher discuss Morrison v. Olson and the lasting impact of Justice Scalia’s lone dissent. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Theodore B. Olson: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/olson-theodore-b/ Learn more about Professor Richard Pildes: https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=20200 Learn more about Professor Gary Lawson: http://www.bu.edu/law/profile/gary-s-lawson/ Related links: Justice Scalia’s dissent: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/487/654.html Morrison v. Olson on Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/87-1279 Differing views: Morrison v. Olson is bad law: https://www.lawfareblog.com/morrison-v-olson-bad-law Scalia’s Finest Opinion: https://www.weeklystandard.com/terry-eastland/scalias-finest-opinion Is Morrison v. Olson Still Good Law? The Court's New Appointments Clause Jurisprudence https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123356?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents On presidents v. special counsels, Justice Scalia got it right long ago https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/385506-on-presidents-v-special-counsels-justice-scalia-got-it-right-long-ago The Confusing and Confused New Attack on the Constitutionality of the Special Counsel’s Investigation https://www.justsecurity.org/56979/confusing-confused-attack-constitutionality-special-counsels-investigation/ The Special Counsel, Morrison v. Olson, and the Dangerous Implications of the Unitary Executive Theory https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-special-counsel-morrison-v-olson-and-the-dangerous-implications-of-the-unitary-executive-theory/ Shielding Mueller: Thoughts on Morrison v Olson https://takecareblog.com/blog/shielding-mueller-thoughts-on-morrison-v-olson Morrison v. Olson Oral Argument Rewind: Everything Old Is New Again https://fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-posts/morrison-v-olson-oral-argument-rewind-everything-old-is-new-again
Views: 70589 The Federalist Society
Fashion & Intellectual Property
 
11:51
Fashion is a three trillion dollar a year industry with a 100% participation rate. So how do companies like Louis Vuitton, Ralph Lauren, Gucci, and Christian Louboutin promote their brands globally while still protecting their designs? To what extent are creators, from individual fashion designers to million-dollar brands, protected under intellectual property law? How do you balance protecting IP with fostering innovation? Lawyers, law professors, and industry experts discuss the role of intellectual property in the fashion industry, explaining three recent cases that continue to spark debate on design protection in the United States. OFFICIAL SELECTION Seattle Fashion Film Festival -Winner, Best Documentary Madrid International Film Festival 2018 - Nominee for Best Short Documentary - Nominee for Best Director of a Short Documentary Film Miami Fest - Semi-Finalist Aesthetica Short Film Festival Chelsea Fashion Film Festival Fashion Film Festival Chicago DAMN! Film Series Miami Fashion Film Festival Milan Fashion Film Festival Milan Lombardy International Film Festival * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Featuring: - Leila Amineddoleh, Amineddoleh & Associates LLC https://www.artandiplawfirm.com/member/leila-a-amineddoleh/ - Jura Zibas, Wilson Elser https://www.wilsonelser.com/attorneys/jura_christine_zibas - Lee Sporn, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP https://www.olshanlaw.com/attorneys-Lee-Sporn.html - Ryan Triplette, Canary Global Strategic https://canaryglobalstrategic.com/ - Howard Deutchman, Meridian Textiles http://meridiantex.com/ - Susan Scafidi, Fordham University School of Law https://www.fordham.edu/info/23380/susan_scafidi - Barbara Kolsun, Cardozo School of Law https://cardozo.yu.edu/directory/barbara-kolsun - Stephen Doniger, Doniger/Burroughs APC http://donigerlawfirm.com/who-we-are/ Related Links: World Intellectual Property Organization Magazine: IP and Business: Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/03/article_0009.html Fortune: Are copyright trolls taking over the fashion industry? http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/patent-trolls-fashion/ Bustle: Fashion Designs Aren’t Protected By Copyright Law, So Knockoffs Thrive As Designers Suffer https://www.bustle.com/articles/4527-fashion-designs-arent-protected-by-copyright-law-so-knockoffs-thrive-as-designers-suffer TED: Johanna Blakley: Lessons From Fashion’s Free Culture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 CREDITS: Produced by: Samantha Schroeder Written by: Samantha Schroeder, Elizabeth Claeys, Anna Wunderlich Directed by: Matthew Ziegler & Samantha Schroeder Director of Photography/Editor: Matthew Ziegler Line Producer: Alex Yershov Associate Producers: Elizabeth Claeys, Anna Wunderlich, Matt Wood, Daniel T. Richards Second Unit DP: Matt Wood Camera Operators: John Abbott, Alex Li, Andy Reynolds Title Typography: Louise Fili Special Thanks: Refinery Hotel
Views: 53009 The Federalist Society
Gamble v. United States [SCOTUSbrief]
 
03:39
While the Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy, Terance Gamble has received two sentences and two convictions for the same crime–once under Alabama law and once under federal law due to the doctrine of dual sovereignty. This jurisprudence comes from the Supreme Court decision in Abbate v. United States (1959), which declared that as separate sovereigns, the states and the federal government may prosecute an individual for the same crime. Should the Court overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy clause? Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute explores the interaction between the double jeopardy clause and state sovereignty in Gamble v. United States. Oral argument is December 5, 2018. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Ilya Shapiro: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro Follow Ilya Shapiro on Twitter @ishapiro https://twitter.com/ishapiro Differing Views: The Yale Law Journal: “Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem” https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/dual-sovereignty-due-process-and-duplicative-punishment-a-new-solution-to-an-old-problem Cato Institute: “Gamble v. United States” https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/gamble-v-united-states National Conference of State Legislatures: “State Authority Under Double Jeopardy Clause on Line in SCOTUS Case” http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/08/29/state-authority-under-double-jeopardy-clause-on-line-in-scotus-case.aspx Case Western Reserve Law Review: “Dual Sovereignty and Double Jeopardy: A Critique of Bartkus v. Illinois and Abbate v. United States” https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4193&context=caselrev Washington University Law Review: “Accepting the Dual Sovereignty Exception to Double Jeopardy: A Hard Case Study” https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1297&context=law_lawreview
Views: 61191 The Federalist Society
Constitutional War Powers: Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
 
04:49
When President Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, he inherited a problem in the Mediterranean--pirates kept hijacking US merchant ships and demanding ransom. Abraham D. Sofaer of the Hoover Institution explains how Jefferson dealt with the Barbary pirates and how his actions should inform our thinking about separation of powers as it relates to issues of war. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Abraham D. Sofaer, George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution: https://www.hoover.org/profiles/abraham-d-sofaer Related Links & Differing Views: The First Barbary War: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/first-barbary-war Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/jefferson-and-the-barbary-pirates/ Clear Statement Rules and Executive War Powers [Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2107/ The War Powers Resolution doesn’t let the president start wars [The Hill] http://thehill.com/opinion/international/383404-the-war-powers-resolution-doesnt-let-the-president-start-wars War Powers Belong to the President [ABA Journal] http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president Constitutional War Powers: Executive Authority in the War on Terror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaOHeeUMS_U Constitutional War Power: The Founders' Framework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUldsTWou4
Views: 38322 The Federalist Society
Federal Student Loans: What Happens If You Don't Pay? [POLICYbrief]
 
04:54
Since 1958, the United States federal government has offered loans to help college students pay for their education. Over the past decade, however, the default rate on these loans has risen sharply, with over 25% of former students failing to repay their loans. What happens when federal student loans aren’t repaid? Student loan lawyer Adam Minsky and Jason Delisle of the American Enterprise Institute explore the troubling landscape of federal student loan repayment. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Learn more about Jason Delisle: https://www.aei.org/scholar/jason-delisle/ Learn more about Adam Minsky: https://minsky-law.com/about/ Differing Views: Brookings: The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-looming-student-loan-default-crisis-is-worse-than-we-thought/ The Washington Post: The number of people defaulting on federal student loans is climbing https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/28/the-number-of-people-defaulting-on-federal-student-loans-is-climbing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d59e794832ea CNBC: Trump administration may make it easier to wipe out student debt in bankruptcy https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/trump-administration-may-make-it-easier-to-wipe-out-student-debt-in-bankruptcy.html The Hill: Is student loan debt the next financial crisis? http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/381322-is-student-loan-debt-the-next-financial-crisis NPR: Is The Student Loan Crisis Fact Or Fiction? https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/28/487032643/is-the-student-loan-crisis-fact-or-fiction The American Prospect: The Argument for Tuition-Free College http://prospect.org/article/argument-tuition-free-college
Views: 45482 The Federalist Society
What Is Bitcoin Mining?
 
02:40
Where do Bitcoins come from, and what is Bitcoin "mining"? Peter van Valkenburgh, Director of Research at Coin Center, explains the role of miners in a system of decentralized currency. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Reach Peter Van Valkenburgh on Twitter: @valkenburgh https://twitter.com/valkenburgh Related links: What is "Blockchain" anyway? https://coincenter.org/entry/what-is-blockchain-anyway What is Bitcoin Mining? https://www.weusecoins.com/en/mining-guide/ How Bitcoin Mining Works https://www.bitcoinmining.com/ Should You Invest In Bitcoin? https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/12/28/should-you-invest-in-bitcoin-10-arguments-against-as-of-december-2015/#47863d9e3895 Is Bitcoin Mining Profitable in 2017? https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-mining-profitable-beginners-explanation/ Bitcoin Law & Public Policy videos https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUX7rNqZ1Ts3UxfXDPS_AwTW
Views: 143720 The Federalist Society
Regulating Planesharing: Flytenow and the FAA [Fourth Branch]
 
03:11
https://www.RegProject.org | Flytenow, founded by Alan Guichard and Matt Voska, was a ridesharing platform for small planes. Hailed as the "Uber of the Sky," Flytenow aimed to serve as an online bulletin board to connect pilots of small planes with those willing to offset the pilots’ costs. However, the FAA deemed the online nature of Flytenow to be impermissible and Flytenow was unable to take flight. Learn the story of Flytenow in this Fourth Branch video. Visit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. Related Links: Free Lunch Podcast: "'Uber of the Sky': The Story of Flytenow" https://regproject.org/free-lunch-podcast-e3/ Free Lunch Podcast: "Can Government Regulation Keep Pace with Emerging Technology?" https://regproject.org/free-lunch-podcast-e11/ Flytenow Blog http://blog.flytenow.com/
Views: 71619 The Federalist Society
The Rise of the Sharing Economy
 
11:14
The “Sharing Economy” is a complex phenomenon that has disrupted industries and transformed how we live and work, but experts can’t even agree on what to call it. Lawyers, public policy experts, academics and workers weigh in to define this dynamic phenomenon and to discuss legal and regulatory issues that emerge as these platforms play an increasingly role in our society. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. RELATED LINKS Regulating Rideshare: Uber & Lyft in Austin, TX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qeTNV4p_AA&t=24s The Rise of the Sharing Economy http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy What’s Yours Is Mine: Against the Sharing Economy by Tom Slee review – the problem with Airbnb and Uber https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/02/whats-yours-is-mine-against-the-sharing-economy-tom-slee-review How Should Ridesharing Be Regulated? https://www.cato.org/events/how-should-ridesharing-be-regulated The Whatchamacallit Economy http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/the-whatchamacallit-economy.html?_r=0 Racism is built into sharing economy, and startups can do little about it http://www.marketwatch.com/story/racism-is-built-into-the-sharing-economy-and-a-fix-could-endanger-highly-valued-startups-2016-12-06 CREDITS Produced by: - Tyler Lowe - Matt Wood Written by: - Tyler Lowe Director of Photography: - Benjamin Gaskell Edited by: - Flatland On-Set Director: - Kirby Voss Line Producer: - JP Mandarino Associate Producers: - Samantha Schroeder - Daniel T. Richards 2nd Unit DP: - Matt Wood Colorists: - Flatland Gaffers: - Mark Belcher - Chase Gibon Assistant Camera: - Matt Wood (1st Unit) - Todd Nash (2nd Unit) Production Assistants: - Varvara Degtiarenko - Lucy Augustine - Louis Watt - Michelle Millette Music by: - The License Lab
Views: 41918 The Federalist Society
How Do Markets Respond to Patents? [Fourth Branch]
 
03:03
https://www.RegProject.org | Does the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review process influence how markets respond to patents? Can the PTAB be abused by those looking to profit off of the review process? Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Associate Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law, weighs in on these questions. Visit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Differing Views: Fourth Branch Video: "Introduction to the Intellectual Property Working Group" https://regproject.org/video-introduction-intellectual-property-working-group/ Fourth Branch Video: "Innovation in the US Patent System" https://regproject.org/fourth-branch-innovation-us-patent-system/ Fourth Branch Video: "The Founding Fathers as Economic Innovators" https://regproject.org/fourth-branch-the-founding-fathers-as-economic-innovators/ Fourth Branch Video: "Determining Patent Quality" https://regproject.org/fourth-branch-determining-patent-quality/
Views: 36096 The Federalist Society
What is absolute immunity? [POLICYbrief]
 
03:10
Is the president of the United States immune to lawsuits? Charles J. Cooper of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC explains absolute immunity and gives an overview of the situations when the president can be sued. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Learn more about Charles Cooper: http://www.cooperkirk.com/lawyers/charles-j-cooper/ See below for differing views on presidential immunity: Can A President's Absolute Immunity be Trumped? https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-presidents-absolute-immunity-be-trumped The Limits of Presidential Immunity http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/28/opinion/the-limits-of-presidential-immunity.html Is President Trump Immune to Lawsuits? https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/is-president-trump-immune-to-lawsuits A Disabled Executive: The Special Counsel Investigation and Presidential Immunities https://lawfareblog.com/disabled-executive-special-counsel-investigation-and-presidential-immunities
Views: 34356 The Federalist Society
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt: The Limits of Self-Incrimination [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:04
What are the limits of self-incrimination under the Constitution? Lisa Soronen, Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center explains the upcoming Supreme Court case, City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt and explores whether compelled statements can be used in a Gerstein hearing or probable cause hearing or whether this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. JUDGMENT: May 29, 2018. Dismissed, per curiam. HOLDING: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1495_e1pf.pdf * * * * * * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Learn more about Lisa Soronen and the State and Local Legal Center: http://www.statelocallc.org/about-us/ Related links: City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt on SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-hays-kansas-v-vogt/ DOJ Tells Justices Forced Statements Can Be Used Pretrial https://www.law360.com/articles/987985/doj-tells-justices-forced-statements-can-be-used-pretrial Amicus Brief of State and Local Government Employers http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/624306/27760191/1511881741663/Hays.PDF?token=Jtv8TH5i7Qz1hckKOYSpz1ZjHyQ%3D City of Hays v. Vogt and the Meaning of “Criminal Case” in the Self-Incrimination Clause http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2017/12/city-of-hays-v-vogt-and-the-meaning-of-criminal-case-in-the-self-incrimination-clause.html
Views: 32124 The Federalist Society
Innovation in the US Patent System [Fourth Branch]
 
03:15
https://www.RegProject.org | How does the US patent system affect inventors and innovators? Does the patent system promote or stifle innovation? Josh Malone, inventor of Bunch O Balloons, and a variety of intellectual property experts weigh in on this important topic. Visit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. Differing Views: RTP Paper: "Crippling the Innovation Economy: Regulatory Overreach at the Patent Office" https://regproject.org/paper/crippling-innovation-economy-regulatory-overreach-patent-office/ Free Lunch Podcast: "Is There a 'Death Squad' at the U.S. Patent Office?: Examining the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" https://regproject.org/free-lunch-podcast-e9/ "Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat 'Patent Trolls'" https://regproject.org/supreme-court-upholds-procedure-thats-said-combat-patent-trolls/ Fourth Branch Video: "Introduction to the Intellectual Property Working Group" https://regproject.org/video-introduction-intellectual-property-working-group/
Views: 35714 The Federalist Society
Liberty, Equality, and Tocqueville
 
02:57
What advice does Alexis de Tocqueville offer to Americans on questions of liberty and equality? James Poulos explains what Americans can learn about themselves from Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and how the rootedness of our hearts can secure our own liberty in a changing democratic society. In "The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves" (2017), journalist and scholar James Poulos translates Tocqueville’s advice for a contemporary audience, illuminating us on how Tocqueville views the relationship friendship between friendship and freedom in today's society. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow James Poulos on Twitter: @jamespoulos https://twitter.com/jamespoulos Related links: The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves https://www.amazon.com/Art-Being-Free-Tocqueville-Ourselves/dp/1250077184 The Art Of Living And Writing Freely Can Save Us From Ourselves http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/13/living-writing-freely-save-ourselves/ In Place of the American Restlessness That Tocqueville Noted, Complacency http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447585/yuval-levin-modern-age-tyler-cowan-robert-nisbet-alexis-de-tocqueville-american-restlessness Tocqueville Reminds Us That Local Communities Make Democracy Work http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/07/tocqueville-reminds-us-local-communities-make-democracy-work-way-think/ Tocqueville on Technology http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/tocqueville-on-technology Tocqueville in America http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/tocqueville-on-technology
Views: 40166 The Federalist Society
Airline Law and Regulation: A Brief History [POLICYbrief]
 
05:34
Why is the airline industry one of the most heavily regulated and subsidized industries in America? Gary Leff, Mercatus Center CFO and author at ViewFromTheWing.com, explains his point of view. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow Gary Leff on Twitter: @garyleff https://twitter.com/garyleff Related Links & Differing Views: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco: Competition and Regulation in the Airline Industry https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2002/january/competition-and-regulation-in-the-airline-industry/ Huffington Post: Airline Deregulation: A Triumph of Ideology Over Evidence https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-morris/airline-deregulation-ideology-over-evidence_b_4399150.html Forbes: Why The Airline Industry Needs More Regulation And Some Suggestions https://www.forbes.com/sites/douggollan/2017/05/29/why-the-airline-industry-needs-more-regulation-and-some-suggestions/#63303795266b New York Times: Do Airlines Need to Be Re-Regulated? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/05/25/do-airlines-need-to-be-re-regulated Related Links: US Department of Transportation: Fly Rights https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights Oyez: Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/75-455
Views: 57854 The Federalist Society
Frank v. Gaos [SCOTUSbrief]
 
03:57
In 2012, three plaintiffs sued Google on behalf of 129 million Americans whose privacy was allegedly violated by the search engine’s business practices. Their settlement with the company awarded considerable sums not to the unnamed class members, but to several organizations promoting internet privacy in what is known as a “cy pres award.” Does a cy pres award that fails to provide direct relief to class members violate due process or the First Amendment? Prof. Jeremy Kidd of Mercer University School of Law explains the controversy over cy pres awards in class action litigation in Frank v. Gaos. Oral argument is October 31, 2018. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Jeremy Kidd: https://law.mercer.edu/faculty/directory/kidd/ Follow Jeremy Kidd on Twitter @jeremylynnkidd https://twitter.com/jeremylynnkidd?lang=en Differing Views: The Federalist Society: “Preview: Frank v. Gaos” https://fedsoc.org/events/preview-frank-v-gaos American Bar Association: “Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-961/54485/20180717134817362_No.%2017-961acAmericanBarAssociation%20-%20Corrected.pdf The Cato Institute & Americans for Prosperity: “Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-961/54075/20180712132946278_Frank%20v%20Gaos%20merits.pdf SCOTUSblog: “Argument preview: Justices to consider propriety of ‘cy pres’ class-action settlements” http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/argument-preview-justices-to-consider-propriety-of-cy-pres-class-action-settlements/
Views: 32720 The Federalist Society
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [SCOTUSbrief]
 
03:32
Can Colorado's public accommodations law compel a baker to serve a customer in a way that would violate his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage? Professor Mark Movsesian of St. John's University School of Law explains the issues at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court Case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. JUDGMENT: June 4, 2018. Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. HOLDING: The Commission's actions in this case violated the free exercise clause. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1144_p8k0.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow Mark Movsesian on Twitter: @MarkMovsesian https://twitter.com/markmovsesian DIFFERING VIEWS SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ ACLU: What You Need to Know https://youtu.be/nMWLawbBlOc Stop Misrepresenting Masterpiece Cakeshop http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454228/masterpiece-cakeshop-case-stop-misrepresenting There’s no free speech right to refuse wedding cakes to gay couples https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/27/theres-no-free-speech-right-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gay-couples/?utm_term=.256bf752493c As a matter of marriage law, wedding cake is expressive conduct http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/symposium-matter-marriage-law-wedding-cake-expressive-conduct/
Views: 57939 The Federalist Society
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:17
In 2010, Andy Cilek was prevented from voting in Minnesota because of his tea party t-shirt. The Minnesota election official claimed that this shirt violated the state’s broad ban on political apparel at the polling place. Is this ban so broad that it violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech? Or is Minnesota justified in its efforts to protect the polling place from disruption? Wen Fa, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, discusses the tension between freedom of speech and the right to vote in the Supreme Court case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. Oral argument was on February 28, 2018. JUDGMENT: June 14, 2018. Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. HOLDING: Minnesota’s political apparel ban violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf * * * * * * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Learn more about Wen Fa: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/wen-fa/ Follow Wen Fa on Twitter: @wenfa1 https://twitter.com/wenfa1 Differing Views: CNN: Justices disturbed with law limiting apparel at voting booths, but struggle with solution https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/supreme-court-t-shirt-dont-tread-on-me/index.html The Economist: Do voters have a right to wear political garb at the polling booth? https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/02/suited-up The Campaign Legal Center: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/case/minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky Reuters: Too political to wear? Supreme Court debates voter apparel law https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-voting/too-political-to-wear-supreme-court-debates-voter-apparel-law-idUSKCN1GC2J1 Related Links: FIRE: Overbreadth Overview https://www.thefire.org/overbreadth-overview/ First Amendment Center: What is a public forum? http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13012
Views: 42631 The Federalist Society
Regulating Planesharing: Exploring Common Carriage and Expense Sharing [Fourth Branch]
 
06:37
https://www.RegProject.org | The legal fate of Flytenow, a ridesharing platform for small planes, was sealed by the FAA's determination that it acted as a common carrier despite Flytenow's claim that it was engaged in permissible expense sharing. What are common carriage and expense sharing? A variety of experts discuss the legal aspects of the Flytenow case. Visit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. Related Links: Fourth Branch Video: "Regulating Planesharing: Flytenow and the FAA" https://regproject.org/fourth-branch-regulating-planesharing-flytenow-faa/ Free Lunch Podcast: "'Uber of the Sky': The Story of Flytenow" https://regproject.org/free-lunch-podcast-e3/ Free Lunch Podcast: "Can Government Regulation Keep Pace with Emerging Technology?" https://regproject.org/free-lunch-podcast-e11/ Flytenow Blog http://blog.flytenow.com/
Views: 37188 The Federalist Society
Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:37
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana is home to Lake Pontchartrain, more than 6,000 businesses, and forests owned in part by timber company Weyerhaeuser. It is not, however, home to the dusky gopher frog, a species that was designated as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 2001. With only 150 dusky gopher frogs remaining in the wild, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is seeking to expand its habitat into new areas in order to facilitate its recovery, including forestland owned by Weyerhaeuser and other private individuals. Can the Service designate privately owned land as critical habitat when said property is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation? Jonathan Wood of the Pacific Legal Foundation explores species conservation and the Endangered Species Act in Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Oral argument is October 1, 2018. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker. Jonathan Wood and the Pacific Legal Foundation represent the petitioner, Weyerhaeuser, in this case. Learn more about Jonathan Wood: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/jonathan-wood/ Follow Jonathan Wood on Twitter: @Jon_C_Wood https://twitter.com/Jon_C_Wood?lang=en Differing Views: The Federalist Society Teleforum: “Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” https://fedsoc.org/events/weyerhaeuser-v-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service SCOTUSblog: “Argument preview: Justices to consider critical-habitat designation for endangered frog” http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/argument-preview-justices-to-consider-critical-habitat-designation-for-endangered-frog/ The Hill: “Endangered frog’s survival depends on making landowners friends not foes” https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/408728-endangered-frogs-survival-depends-on-making-landowners-friends-not#.W60sWei2XSg.twitter Property and Environment Research Center: “If a Frog Had Wings, Would It Fly to Louisiana?” https://www.perc.org/2018/07/13/if-a-frog-had-wings-would-it-fly-to-louisiana/
Views: 42067 The Federalist Society
Supreme Court Roundup: October Term 2017 [SCOTUSbrief]
 
04:56
While the Supreme Court’s last term included a number of blockbuster decisions, the majority of cases received minimal coverage. Prof. Thomas Lee of Fordham Law and Prof. Jennifer Mascott of Antonin Scalia Law School discuss the outcomes in three underreported #SCOTUS cases: Sveen v. Melin, Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Learn more about Jennifer Mascott: https://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/mascott_jennifer Learn more about Thomas Lee: https://www.fordham.edu/info/23157/thomas_h_lee Differing Views on Sveen: The Federalist Society SCOTUScast: “Sveen v. Melin - Post-Argument SCOTUScast” https://fedsoc.org/commentary/podcasts/sveen-v-melin-post-argument-scotuscast The Federalist Society Blog: “Originalism and the Contract Clause” https://fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-posts/originalism-and-the-contract-clause Washington Examiner: “Neil Gorsuch was the lone dissenter in an 8-1 Supreme Court decision. Here’s why he was right.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/neil-gorsuch-made-the-right-call-in-sveen-v-melin ThinkProgress: “Gorsuch just wrote an opinion so radical that Clarence Thomas wouldn’t join it” https://thinkprogress.org/neil-gorsuch-sveen-v-malin-most-radical-opinion-yet-233125a182f6/ Differing Views on Lucia: The Federalist Society: “Courthouse Steps: Lucia v. SEC Decided” https://fedsoc.org/events/courthouse-steps-lucia-v-sec-decided The Federalist Society Blog: “Administrative Law’s Assault On Civil Liberty: Lucia Vs. SEC” https://fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-posts/administrative-law-s-assault-on-civil-liberty-lucia-vs-sec The George Washington Law Review: “Lucia v. SEC” https://www.gwlr.org/lucia-v-sec/ SCOTUSblog: “Symposium: The appointments clause — a modest take” http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/symposium-the-appointments-clause-a-modest-take/ Slate: “Elena Kagan Is Up to Something” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/elena-kagans-ruling-in-lucia-v-sec-reveals-her-long-term-supreme-court-strategy.html Differing Views on Animal Science Products: The Federalist Society: “Courthouse Steps: Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical” https://fedsoc.org/events/courthouse-steps-animal-science-products-v-hebei-welcome-pharmaceutical SCOTUSblog: “Opinion analysis: ‘Respectful consideration,’ but not deference, required on foreign-law questions” http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-respectful-consideration-but-not-deference-required-on-foreign-law-questions/
Views: 38020 The Federalist Society
Exploring Federalist 51: Legislative Power
 
03:13
Who should exercise lawmaking power in a constitutional republic? The United States Constitution broke precedent by vesting all federal legislative power in Congress. This video essay explores how the Framers of our Constitution organized lawmaking power, and why they justified giving Congress the greatest lawmaking responsibility. This project is part of the Federalist Society’s Article I Initiative, which explores the proper role of Congress according to its constitutional design. To learn more, please visit the Article I Initiative website: https://fedsoc.org/articlei. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. RELATED LINKS National Constitution Center - Interactive Constitution, Article I https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i Article I, Section 1: The Delegation Doctrine by William N. Eskridge, Jr. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/art-i-sec-1-eskridge/clause/33 Article I, Section I: The Non-Delegation Principle Persists by Neomi Rao https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/article-1-section-1-neomi-rao/clause/33 Douglas H. Ginsburg - Legislative Vesting Clause https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/2/legislative-vesting-clause Gary Lawson, Delegation and Original Meaning 88 Va. L. Rev. 327 (2002) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=288433 David Schoenbrod, Power Without Responsibility https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300065183/power-without-responsibility
Views: 50982 The Federalist Society
Oil States v. Greene's [SCOTUSbrief]
 
03:37
Is a patent private property or a public right? Brian Pandya, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP, analyzes the core issues in the upcoming Supreme Court Case, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. Is it constitutional for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents through a non-Article III forum without a jury? JUDGMENT: April 24, 2018. Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Roberts joined. HOLDING: Inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf ********** As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Learn more about Brian Pandya: https://www.wileyrein.com/professionals-BrianPandya.html Related links: SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oil-states-energy-services-llc-v-greenes-energy-group-llc/ Are Inter Partes Reviews “Quintessential” Agency Adjudications? https://www.natlawreview.com/article/are-inter-partes-reviews-quintessential-agency-adjudications High Stakes for Patent Holders, Challengers in SCOTUS “Oil States” Case https://wlflegalpulse.com/2017/11/13/high-stakes-for-patent-holders-challengers-in-scotus-oil-states-case/ Supreme Court will weigh in on troll-killing patent-review process https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/supreme-court-will-weigh-in-on-troll-killing-patent-review-process/ Will “Oil States” Upend IPRs? https://www.tmtindustryinsider.com/2017/11/will-oil-states-upend-iprs/
Views: 31922 The Federalist Society
Constitutional War Power: The Founders' Framework
 
02:54
What kind of war power does the Constitution grant the President? Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, outlines the framework that the American founders placed around the limits of the Executive branch to exercise the power to declare war. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Follow Doug Bandow on Twitter: @Doug_Bandow https://twitter.com/Doug_Bandow Differing Views & Related Links: Constitutional War Powers: Executive Authority in the War on Terror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaOHeeUMS_U War Powers Belong to the President http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president The War Powers of President Trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-war-powers-of-president-trump Antiwar Senator, War-Powers President https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704050204576218540505216146 War Powers at the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
Views: 36314 The Federalist Society
How Do Regulations Get Made? [Fourth Branch]
 
02:20
https://www.RegProject.org | What is the mechanism by which regulations are developed, finalized, and updated? How can this process be improved? Susan Dudley, Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, provides insight into these questions. Visit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Related Links: RTP Paper:" Government Regulation: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" https://regproject.org/paper/government-regulation-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/ Free Lunch Podcast: "Bureaucracy in America" https://regproject.org/free-lunch-podcast-e8/ Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure “Regulation: A Primer” by Susan E. Dudley and Jerry Brito https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/RegulatoryPrimer_DudleyBrito.pdf
Views: 10585 The Federalist Society
Waters of the United States: Interpreting the Clean Water Act [Fourth Branch]
 
08:10
https://www.RegProject.org | What is the Clean Water Act? Have historical interpretations of its scope changed over the years? What are the practical effects of those interpretations on the environment, farmers, and landowners? How is this issue relevant today? Donald Kochan (Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law) and Robert Glicksman (George Washington University Law School) explore these questions as they discuss the scope of the Clean Water Act. Visit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. Differing Views: "Summary of the Clean Water Act" https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act "Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rulemaking" https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule RTP Paper: "Restoring Meaningful Limits to “Waters of the United States" https://regproject.org/paper/restoring-meaningful-limits-waters-united-states/ "Trump administration moves to slash federal protection for waterways" https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-moves-to-slash-federal-protection-for-waterways/2018/12/11/eee0056a-fc98-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4601fbbd6905
Views: 20123 The Federalist Society
Matal v. Tam: “Disparaging” Trademarks & the First Amendment
 
02:10
[The case is now Matal v. Tam.] Can the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) deny a trademark to a group with an offensive name - or does the First Amendment invalidate the provision of trademark law under which the denial was made? Attorney and legal commentator John Shu explains the dispute between the PTO and an Asian-American rock band seeking to trademark the name “The Slants” in the case Lee v. Tam. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on January 18th. Learn more about John Shu: http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/john-shu As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Related Links Lee v. Tam: SCOTUSBlog http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lee-v-tam/ Law on Disparaging Trademarks Gets Supreme Court Review https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/supreme-court-trademarks-redskins.html?_r=1 Lee v. Tam https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/lee-v-tam Key question of Slants case at SCOTUS: Is trademark registration speech? If so, whose? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-slants-idUSKBN1492MU
Views: 25767 The Federalist Society

Precios calanda homes
Zovirax 200 mg suspension
Cymbalta 30 side effects
Biaxin 250 mg 5ml bottle
Jandrugs generic cialis