Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Franita Tolson, Professor of Law and Vice-Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, discusses her article "The Spectrum of Congressional Authority Over Elections," which is published in the Boston University Law Review. Tolson begins by explaining how overlapping constitutional authorization for Congressional regulation should affect the scope and strength of Congressional power. Specifically, she observes that the 14th Amendment and the Elections Clause both authorize Congressional regulation of elections, and argues that this overlapping authority should increase Congressional power to act. She criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder for failing to consider how the Elections Clause affects the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. And she reflects on how her observations about multiple sources of constitutional authority might affect the analysis of the legitimacy of Congressional action in the election law context and elsewhere going forward. Tolson is on Twitter at @ProfTolson.

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, William Moon, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, discusses his article "Delaware's New Competition," forthcoming in the Northwestern University Law Review. Moon begins by providing a broad outline of the contemporary understanding of American corporate law, detailing how corporate law scholarship has been based upon an understanding that some level of competition exists between states to supply corporate charters. Delaware has largely dominated this market through a combination of a friendly regulatory environment and network effects. While existing accounts presuppose an inter-state market for corporate charters, Moon notes that overseas jurisdictions have begun to compete with domestic states to supply corporate charters. He shows that a handful of foreign nations in offshore islands have built sophisticated legal infrastructure, including specialized business courts, to compete in this emerging international market. A close relationship between the private sector and legislators in these jurisdictions, which results in part from these lawmakers’ reliance on corporate franchise taxes as a source of revenue, is crucial to their success. And he concludes by discussing what shareholders, regulators, and lawyers should take away from these developments in corporate law. Moon is on Twitter at @willmoontweets.

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, Bob Tarantino, an entertainment lawyer at Dentons Canada LLP in Toronto and a PhD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School, discusses his dissertation, "If You Love Something, Set It Free: Open Content Copyright Licensing and Creative Cultural Expression." Tarantino's dissertation uses a study of the Dungeons & Dragons "open game license" to illustrate and investigate the use of open content licensing in practice. He begins by describing the prevailing consequentialist and deontological theories of copyright, as well as the "communicative" theory of copyright, and how it differs from the prevailing theories in prioritizing dialogue over control. He also explains the origin and purpose of the open content movement. He reflect on the creation and evolution of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. And he describes his qualitative study of participants in the commercial market for Dungeons & Dragons products and their subjective assessments of the open game license. Tarantino is on Twitter at @bobtarantino.

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, Noah Weisbord, Associate Professor of Law at Queens University Faculty of Law, discusses his book, The Crime of Aggression: The Quest for Justice in an Age of Drones, Cyberattacks, Insurgents, and Autocrats. Weisbord begins by defining the crime of aggression, and traces its historical development from the attempts to promote peace in the 1920s through the League of Nations to its modern conception in international law. He summarizes the negotiations over the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the institution, and the subsequent amendments in 2010 regarding the crime of aggression. He discusses the incorporation of the international legal norm into the domestic realm, bringing up the the prosecution of Russian servicemen for waging a war of aggression in Ukraine and the investigation of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's conduct regarding the Iraq War by the Chilcot Inquiry.

Weisbord outlines the elements that constitute a crime of aggression, placing responsibility for unlawful uses of military force in the hands of military and political leaders. He explains the limitations of the crime, noting that cyber-attacks conducted against Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz by the United States and Israel and the attacks on the 2016 Presidential election by Russian-linked actors do not merit retaliation for violating the international law against aggression. He reflects upon the potential abuses of the crime of aggression by state actors who might use the responsibility to protect doctrine or mis-matched retaliation to justify otherwise illicit uses of force. And he concludes by providing his insights and recommendations on the crime of aggression for the public, policymakers, and governments. Weisbord is on Twitter at @NoahWeisbord.

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

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

In this episode, Jay D. Wexler, Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, discusses his new book, "Our Non-Christian Nation: How Atheists, Satanists, Pagans, and Others Are Demanding Their Rightful Place in Public Life," which is published by Redwood Press, the trade imprint of the Stanford University Press. Wexler begins by describing how the Supreme Court has historically decided Establishment Clause cases relating to religious speech by the government and in public spaces, observing that the question is especially timely because the Court is currently considering a case on the question. He then reflects on different ways of thinking about the limits on public religious speech. He considers several examples, including the Summum religion and the Satanic Temple, and how those organizations have intervened in the debate over public religious speech. And he closes by explaining why pluralism in public religious speech could improve public discourse. Wexler is on Twitter at @SCOTUSHUMOR.

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, Rose Cuison Villazor, Professor of Law and Chancellor's Social Justice Scholar at Rutgers Law School, Newark, discusses her article "Anti-Sanctuary & Immigration Localism," which she co-authored with Pratheepan Gulasekaram and Rick Su, and which was published in the Columbia Law Review. Villazor begins by explaining the concept of a "sanctuary city" and the role they play in immigration policy. She observes that the federal government's efforts to coerce sanctuary cities into enforcing federal immigration law have been largely unsuccessful, due in part to constitutional anti-commandeering principles, but state government efforts to control sanctuary cities don't face the same 10th Amendment objections. She argues that state anti-commandeering principles may protect sanctuary cities against state action. And she reflects on how we should recognize that immigration policy is not just national policy, but also local policy. Villazor is on Twitter at @ProfRCVillazor.

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, Thibault Schrepel, Affiliate Faculty at the Berkman Center at Harvard University and Assistant Professor in European Economic Law at Utrecht University School of Law, discusses his article "Antitrust Without Romance." Schrepel begins by explaining the concept of "public choice theory" and how it can help us understand the incentives of antitrust regulators. He describes the data he collected on how the public statements of regulators illuminates how they may be responding to those incentives. And he explains how the purpose of antitrust policy is in tension with many recent developments in antitrust advocacy. He argues that we should make antitrust policy in light of protecting competition, not morality. Schrepel is on Twitter at @LeConcurrential.

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 Mannheimer, Professor of Law at the Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law, discusses his article “Vagueness as Impossibility,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review. Prof. Mannheimer begins by giving an overview and history of the void for vagueness doctrine, focusing on the two traditional rationales for its existence: 1) requiring that statutes, both criminal and civil, give notice of what conduct is illegal, and 2) preventing the delegation of legislative power to those who should not wield it, such as prosecutors or police. He then describes and contrasts differing positions that Supreme Court justice has taken on the doctrine, particularly between Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Prof. Mannheimer explains the difference between ambiguous and vague statutes, and highlights some of the problems with the current void for vagueness doctrine, including its underinclusivity, and its inherent contradictions. He closes by discussing a potential reframing of vagueness as impossibility, taking the doctrine in a much more practical direction. Mannheimer's scholarship 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.

In this episode, Hilary J. Allen, Associate Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, discusses her article Driverless Finance. Allen discusses how emerging financial technology introduces new systemic risks to our financial system and explains why regulators need to respond quickly to build new tools for our new environment. Driverless Finance is forthcoming in the Harvard Business Law Review. Allen's scholarship is available on SSRN.

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 1955, Emory Cook made a field recording of a burlesque show at Minsky's Theater in Newark, New Jersey. He released the recording as an LP in his "Sounds of Our Times" series on his "Cook Laboratories" label. Among other things it featured an orchestra conducted by Harold Rausch and performance by Marie Voe and Patti Waggin. While the New York Times ran a condescending review of the release, it is a unique record of an important cultural phenomenon. Here is the tracklist:

A1Lobby Talker — Candy Butcher

A2Chorus Line

A3Strip Tease: Maria Vee

A4Sketch: Old Judge Montfort Rides Again

A5Chorus Line

A6Strip Tease: Patti Waggin

B1Music For Strip Tease

B2Sketch: Aunt Martha's New Maid

B3Music For Strip Tease

B4Sketch: Women Haters' Club

B5Till Tomorrow, Same Time, Same Place

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