Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Jay Soled, Professor and Director of Master of Accountancy in Taxation at Rutgers University, discusses his paper, "Reimagining the Estate Tax in the Automation Era," published in the UC Irvine Law Review. Soled begins by talking about the history of the estate tax in the United States, and its relation to the income tax in the United States. He claims that the decline of labor's share of income and the advance of automation will lead to declines in government revenue, as income taxes make up the majority of collected taxes. As an alternative, he proposes a re-invigorated estate tax acting as a deferred tax on capital income, minimizing the potential for capital flight and un-realized gains that result from a direct tax on capital income. And he provides justifications for his strengthened and broadened estate tax. Soled concludes by discussing what policymakers, lawmakers, and people should take away from his proposal. Soled's scholarship is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. 

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

In 1968, Bobby Seale was one of the "Chicago Eight" defendants charged with conspiracy and inciting a riot at Democratic National Convention in Chicago. During the trial, Seale protested his treatment, and Judge Julius Hoffman ordered him bound and gagged. On November 5, 1969, Hoffman sentenced Seale to four years in prison for contempt of court.

In 1970, the Certron Corporation of Nashville, Tennessee released a 2xLP set titled "Bound & Chained: The Sentencing of Bobby Seale for Contempt." The record was produced by Dennis F. Shanahan, and was described as "A dramatic, historical re-enactment of the Chicago Conspiracy Trial, November 5, 1969, as it relates to Bobby Seale and the sentencing of Seale for contempt by Judge Julius Hoffman." It also includes a live interview recorded with Bobby Seale while imprisoned in the New Haven, Connecticut jail.

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

In this episode, Jess Miers, a law student at Santa Clara University School of Law, discusses her work on Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, intermediary liability, and content moderation. Miers begins by explaining how Section 230 works and why it was enacted. She reflects on how she became interested in Section 230 and technology policy. She describes the debate around Section 230 and whether it facilitates the harassment of women. And she explains why she enrolled in the "tech edge" program at Santa Clara. Miers blogs at CTRL-ALT-DISSENT and is on Twitter at @jess_miers. You can view her TEDx talk here and read about her Section 230 tattoo here.

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, Melanie Reid, Associate Dean of Faculty and Professor of Law at Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law, discusses her paper "A CSI Story: The Past, Present, and Future of Crime Scene Collection and What Litigators Need to Know" which was published in the Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy. Reid begins by discussing the role of crime scene investigators, and how contemporary perceptions of CSIs based upon movies and TV shows are much different than the realities in the field. She explores the advancement of forensic science through the lens of a 19th century murder trial in England and the 1994 OJ Simpson murder trial, noting the wide differences in forensic science techniques between the 19th century and the modern day. And she notes that a number of errors have been made by CSIs, and details what changes can be made to improve crime scene collection. She discusses the role of CSIs, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in criminal trials, and how each should interact with one another and the information provided by CSIs during trial. Reid concludes with what lawyers, judges, and investigative agencies should take away from her paper. Reid's scholarship is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.

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

In this episode, Andy Wright, Senior Fellow & Founding Editor of Just Security and Partner at K&L Gates, discusses his paper "Executive Privilege and Inspectors General." Wright begins by talking about the unique role of inspectors general as part of the executive branch organizational structure while simultaneously beholden to Congress as a creation of statute, placing them in directly within debates over the structure of powers between government branches. As part of the oversight responsibilities of inspectors general, they are in the possession of potentially confidential or executive privilege-eligible documents. He notes that this creates a difficult balance for inspectors general and Congress, where Congress can request documents that the executive branch refuses to deliver from the inspectors general. He notes that this creates a set of risks to executive privilege, and leads to chilling effects on future executive branch participation with inspectors general oversight actions. And he concludes by discussing what those in the courts, legislature, and executive branch should take away from his paper. Wright is on Twitter at @AndyMcCanse, and Just Security is on Twitter at @Just_Security.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.

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

In this episode, Christian Burset, Associate Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School, discusses his article, "Why Didn't the Common Law Follow the Flag?,” which was published in the Virginia Law Review. Burset is on Twitter at @cburset. Here is the abstract:

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. 

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

In this episode M. Eve Hanan, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law, discusses her draft article, A Qualitative Turn In Sentencing. Hanan explains how little the policymakers setting prison sentences know about the lived experience of persons in prison. Hanan's scholarship is available on SSRN and she is on Twitter at @eve_hanan.

This episode was hosted by Benjamin Edwards, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law. Edwards is on Twitter at @BenPEdwards.

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

In this episode, Nizan Packin, Assistant Professor at the Zicklin School of Business of Baruch College, City University of New York and Affiliate Fellow at Indiana University Bloomington Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance, discusses her article, "RegTech, Compliance and Technology Judgment Rule," published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review. Packin begins by defining what Regulatory Technologies are, and details the growth of technologies that disrupt and assist processes in the financial sector. She notes that a number of new entrants into the financial sector that perform the services of banks, termed 'non-banks,' have a number of unique regulatory challenges. She describes the goals of financial regulation, and the promises and perils of RegTech adoption to help address these regulatory goals. And she concludes by stating what policymakers, companies, and regulators should take away from these developments. Packin is on Twitter at @NizanGP.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.

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

In this episode, Jeffrey Bellin, Professor of Law and University Professor for Teaching Excellence at William & Mary Law School, discusses his paper "Fourth Amendment Textualism," forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review. Bellin begins by exploring the problems with current Fourth Amendment “search” jurisprudence and its reliance on Katz v. United States’ amorphous 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test. He notes that current Fourth Amendment doctrine is nonintuitive and unclear for both state actors and the general public, and recommends, instead, a textualist approach. He expounds upon the approach, defining “search” in an intuitive manner, as well as offering definitions for the remaining applicable textual components of the Fourth Amendment, “their” and "persons, houses, papers, and effects," and discusses how such an approach would work in the twenty-first century. He concludes by discussing why this approach might be an improvement, and what scholars, lawyers, and the courts should take away from his proposal. Bellin is on Twitter at @BellinJ.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.

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

In this episode, Hannah Haksgaard, Associate Professor of Law at the University of South Dakota School of Law, returns and discusses her article “Rural Practice as Public Interest Work,” published this summer in the symposium issue of the Maine Law Review. Prof. Hakgaard introduces listeners to the severe rural lawyer shortage faced in every state of the country. She then explains why rural private practice should be considered public interest work for the purposes of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: 1) to combat the rural lawyer shortage, 2) the mixed nature of rural practice, 3) supplying public services, and 4) to combat low rural lawyer salaries. Prof. Haksgaard then addresses the implications of extending the definition of “public interest” to include rural private practice on federal student loan forgiveness and recruiting for law schools, particularly state law schools in rural communities. Her scholarship, including her new paper, is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Prof. Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero.

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