Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law, discusses his draft article "Federal Elections and State Constitutions." Morley begins by describing the Supreme Court's recent rejection of constitutional challenges to political gerrymandering, and how it led commentators to suggest the use of state constitutional law to regulate political gerrymandering. He introduces the independent state legislature doctrine, which holds that the Elections Clauses of the Constitution delegate the power to regulate elections exclusively to legislatures, not to states as a whole. He reflects on this history of the interpretation of the Elections Clauses, and concludes that the independent states legislature doctrine is the correct interpretation. Morley is on Twitter at @michaelmorley11.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Daphne Keller, Director of Intermediary Liability at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School and former Associate General Counsel for Google, discusses her essay "Who Do You Sue?: State and Platform Hybrid Power Over Online Speech," which is published by the Hoover Institution. Keller begins by explaining how the First Amendment does - or doesn't - affect the ability of internet platforms to regulate online speech. She describes various arguments about why internet platforms should or shouldn't regulate speech, proposals to implement those arguments, and why those proposals are likely to fail. And she reflects on how internet platforms can and should regulate online speech. Keller is on Twitter at @daphnehk.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, ECC11, an incarcerated person who is a leader of the Latin King and Queen Nation, discusses the ideas of the movement. In the first segment, he presents a lesson titled, "Brown Force and the Political Philosophy of the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation." He begins by reciting "Brown Force" in its entirety, then reflects on its meaning. In the second segment, ECC11 explains the origins of the Latin King and Queen Nation and its fundamental motivating principles. Among other things he reflects on its anticolonialist ideology and the racial politics of the organization. He also discusses the concept of the "New King," reflects on the history of the organization, and explains how its racial politics have changed over time.

This episode was hosted by King, an incarcerated person. King is on Twitter at @King_ShankRadio.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Daniel Epps, Associate Professor of Law at Washington University St. Louis School of Law, discusses his draft article "Checks and Balances in the Criminal Law." Epps begins by observing that we often conflate the separation of powers with checks and balances, and arguing that they are actually quite different. He notes that many scholars and judges consider the separation of powers critical to restraining the exercise of criminal law, but he argues that checks and balances actually do the real work. He observes that separation of powers turned out to really be separation of parties. And he argues that we should focus on imposing limits, rather than distributing powers. Epps is on Twitter at @danepps.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Rohan Grey, a J.S.D. student at Cornell Law School and the founder and president of the Modern Money Network, discusses his work on the intersection of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and intellectual property theory. Grey begins by briefly explaining the fundamental premises of MMT and the job guarantee, observing that MMT is an extension of Keynesian economic principles, and that the job guarantee is a way of setting a floor on the price of labor. He also observes that MMT scholarship has not focused on the role of property, and explains why he thinks property is in tension with the social goals of MMT. In particular, the non-rivalry of the intangible goods protected by intellectual property rights should be unnecessary in an MMT framework. He argues that the job guarantee and other policies can make intellectual property unnecessary, and discusses several potential policy approaches. Grey's scholarship is available here, and his article "Who Owns the Intellectual Fruits of Job Guarantee Labor?", in M. Murray & M. Forstater (Eds.), The Job Guarantee and Modern Money Theory: Realizing Keynes's Labor Standard (2017) is available here. Grey is on Twitter at @rohangrey.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Milan Markovic, Professor of Law and Co-Convener of the Program in Law and Social Science, discusses his article "The Paradox of Minority Attorney Satisfaction," which he co-authored with Gabriele Plickert, and which is published in the International Review of Law and Economics. Markovic begins by explaining that the article is based on survey data gathered with the help of the Texas Bar Association, which consists of information provided by Texas attorneys about many aspects of their practice, including their satisfaction. Markovic and Plickert found that minority attorneys reported higher levels of satisfaction that would otherwise be predicted, and appear to respond to certain factors differently from white attorneys. Markovic suggests that this finding could help inform legal education, and reflects on how it might also inform our understanding of the norms of the legal profession. Markovic is on Twitter at @ProfMarkovic.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Victoria J. Haneman, Associate Professor of Law at the Creighton University School of Law, discusses her article "Intergenerational Equity, Student Loan Debt, and Taxing Rich Dead People," which will be published in the Virginia Tax Review. Haneman begins by explaining the concept of intergenerational equality, and why there is considerable inequality between the Baby Boomer generation and the Millennial generation. She observes that the burden of financing higher education has moved from the government to students, and that students face crippling debt burdens. She argues that debt is a common pool resource that is being overused, and that we should return to government funding. Among other things, she argues that the government should increase transfer and gift taxes. Haneman is on Twitter at @TaxLawProf.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Michael Gentithes, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Akron School of Law, discusses his article "Suspicionless Witness Stops: The New Racial Profiling," which will be published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. Gentithes begins by explaining how police are increasingly stopping and searching people, mostly minority men, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply on the ground that they may have witnessed a crime committed by someone else. He explains how courts have permitted these stops, based on an analogy to checkpoints stops, and why that analogy doesn't work and should be abandoned. And he argues that courts should adopt additional procedural requirements, in order to prevent police from abusing suspicionless stops. Gentithes is on Twitter at @MikeGentithes.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Sergio Verdugo, Associate Professor of Law at Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile, discusses his work on constitution-making and constitutional courts in relation to current constitutional disputes in Chile. Verdugo begins by explaining the history of the Chilean Constitution, how it has been rewritten and amendment, and the differing perceptions of its legitimacy. He describes the bifurcated judicial Chilean judicial system, which includes both a Supreme Court and a Constitutional Court, reflects on how the Chilean system draws on other constitutional systems, and explains the relationship between the two Chilean high courts. He discusses a recent controversy, in which the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have disputed their relative authorship, and reflect on how it should be resolved. And he discusses the constitutional implications of the current state of emergency in Chile. Verdugo is on Twitter at @sergioverdugor. His scholarship is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.