Speaking about Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, televangelist Franklin Graham urged the crowd "to get him reelected!"
Graham subsequently said he misspoke (Yahoo News). His cry nevertheless stoked anxiety among Trump skeptics and opponents, amplified by the March 28 No Kings rallies, about the President's sometimes clingy affection for the office.
Commenters have spilt much ink on how the President might circumvent the two-term limit of the 22nd Amendment.
With sound interpretive methodology and inquiry into historical sources, Professor Vyas's research takes the wind out of one circumvention theory. Here is the abstract:
The text of the Twenty-Second Amendment seems clear that a president cannot be elected to a third term: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." This Essay looks further to the history surrounding the Twenty-Second Amendment, an exercise sometimes employed by judges, particularly those who favor the constitutional interpretive method of originalism. History shows that a president cannot be elected to a third term on the theory that the previous terms were nonconsecutive.
Dr. Helen Knowles-Gardner spoke at UMass Law School Wednesday on "When Alabama Tried to Destroy the NAACP (and Freedom of Association)."
In recognition of Black History Month, Dr. Knowles-Gardner, research director at the Institute for Free Speech (IFS), talked about a crucial moment in the nation’s civil rights history. In 1956, Alabama waged war on the NAACP by demanding that the organization turn over its membership lists to the state. The NAACP was unable to operate in Alabama for eight years. Litigation produced the landmark First Amendment freedom of association decision, still relevant today, NAACP v. Alabama (U.S. 1958).
Dr. Knowles-Gardner explained how the civil rights precedent in NAACP has contemporary relevance in cases such as First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin (SCOTUSblog), in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in December. The case centers on a New Jersey subpoena for donor names and staff information from a chain of anti-abortion pregnancy centers. The centers argue the state investigation violates the First Amendment freedom of association. The Court seemed skeptical of the state's asserted need for the information. IFS filed an amicus brief, informed by Knowles-Gardner's research, on the side of the centers. The political shoe might be on the other foot in the case, but the freedom-of-association issue is strikingly familiar.
Dr. Knowles-Gardner earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from Boston University and a B.A. in American Studies with first class honors from Liverpool Hope University College (now Hope University) in Liverpool, England. An avid runner, Dr. Knowles-Gardner participates in races across the country, including the Marine Corps Marathon, running with the American flag for Team RWB, a national organization devoted to enhancing the lives of the nation’s veterans. She and her husband, a disabled U.S. Navy veteran, live in upstate New York.
The talk at UMass Law School was co-sponsored by the Black Law Students Association, the Law & Political Economy student organization, and the Office of the Dean.
Yesterday I had the privilege to present in a lecture series (virtually) at Jagiellonian University (UJ) on the tort of nuisance in American common law. I sketched out the historical background of nuisance relative to the recent lawsuit by the State of Missouri, against the People's Republic of China, alleging public nuisance, among other theories, and seeking to establish responsibility and liability for the coronavirus pandemic. Here is a video (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) of the presentation, also available from Facebook, where the lecture streamed live. A narrative abstract is below the video.
The Tort of 'Nuisance' in American Common Law:
From Hedge Trimming to Coronavirus in 900 Years
Nuisance is one of the oldest civil actions in Anglo-American law, dating to the earliest written common law of the late middle ages. Nuisance for centuries referred to an offense against property rights, like trespass, interfering with a neighbor’s enjoyment of land. But a nuisance need not be physical, and colorful cases have addressed nuisance achieved by forces such as sound, light, and smell. In recent decades, nuisance has undergone a radical transformation and generated a new theory of civil liability that has become untethered from private property. State and local officials have litigated a broad new theory of “public nuisance” to attack problems on which the federal government has been apathetic, if not willfully resistant to resolution, such as climate change and the opioid epidemic. Just last month, the State of Missouri sued the People’s Republic of China, asserting that COVID-19 constitutes a public nuisance. Emerging from understandable frustration, public nuisance nevertheless threatens to destabilize the fragile equilibrium of state and federal power that holds the United States together.
Here are some links to read more, as referenced in the presentation:
Oral argument in Oakland v. BP (9th Cir. argued Feb. 5, 2020)
Complaint in Missouri v. PRC (E.D. Mo. filed Apr. 21, 2020) (item 1)
Here is a two-minute video (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) of only my PowerPoint (no audio), if you want an idea about the course of the talk:
The four-part lecture series, "American Law in Difficult Times," comprises:
Paul Kurth: The American Low-Income Taxpayer: Legal Framework and Roles Law Students Play
May 12, 18:00 Event - Video
May 19, 18:00
Richard Peltz-Steele: “Nuisance” in American Common Law Tort: COVID-19 as a Public Nuisance? Event - Video
May 26, 18:00 Susanna Fischer: Art Museums in Financial Crisis: Legal and Ethical Issues Related to Deaccessioning Event - Video
June 2, 18:00 Cecily Baskir: American Criminal Justice Reform in the Time of COVID-19 Event - Video
Here is the lecture series invitation (Polish) from the American Law Students' Society (ALSS) at UJ, via Facebook:
Here is an "about" from ALSS and partners:
❖ ABOUT AMERICAN LAW IN DIFFICULT TIMES:
The American Law Program (Szkoła Prawa Amerykańskiego) run by the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of American [CUA], Washington D.C., and the Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, as well as the American Law Students’ Society (Koło Naukowe Prawa Amerykańskiego)
at the Jagiellonian University, Kraków, sincerely invite you to
participate in a series of four one-hour online open lectures and
discussion sessions delivered by professors from the American Law
Program.
The lectures will be devoted to a variety of
legal issues mainly relating to COVID-19 difficulties facing people and
institutions, for which legal solutions may be useful.
The
lectures will be available through Microsoft Teams as well as a
live-stream via Facebook. Participants willing to participate through
Microsoft Teams are kindly asked to provide the organizers with their
e-mails no later than 6 hours before the commencement of the lecture, by
e-mail to kn.prawaamerykanskiego@gmail.com.
Your
participation in all four lectures will be certified by the American Law
Students’ Society. Only those participants who provide the organisers
with their name, surname and e-mail will be granted such certificates.
I am grateful to Jagoda Szpak and Agnieszka Zając of ALSS at UJ; Wojciech Bańczyk, Piotr Szwedo, Julianna Karaszkiewicz-Kobierzyńska, and Gaspar Kot at UJ; and Leah Wortham at CUA. The lecture series is sponsored by, and I am further grateful to, the Koło Naukowe Prawa Amerykańskiego (ALSS), Szkoła Prawa Amerykańskiego (School of American Law), and the
Ośrodek Koordynacyjny Szkół Praw Obcych (Coordination Center for
Foreign Law Schools) at the Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie
(UJ in Kraków), and to CUA.
Psychedelics are powerful psychoactive substances which alter
consciousness and brain function. Like cannabis, psychedelics have long
been considered prohibited Schedule I substances under the Controlled
Substances Act of 1970. However, via the powerful psychological
experiences they induce, psychedelics are now being shown to be viable
therapeutic alternatives in treating depression, substance use
disorders, and other mental illnesses, and even to enhance the
well-being of healthy individuals. In May 2019, Denver, Colorado became
the first city in the country to decriminalize psilocybin (the active
compound in “magic mushrooms”) — a potential major shift in the War on
Drugs. Ballot initiatives for the decriminalization of psilocybin and
similar substances are now reaching voters in other cities and states.
What principles might justify this decriminalization — eliminating
criminal penalties for, at a minimum, the use and possession — of
psilocybin and other psychedelics? This Article provides background on
psychedelics and a historic overview of the laws surrounding them. It
then considers several potential justifications for decriminalizing
psychedelics: (1) medical value; (2) religious freedom; (3) cognitive
liberty; and (4) identity politics. Lastly, the Article proposes a
reframed justification rooted in principles of social justice.
%20-sm.jpg)
