rationally BASED

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, explore a series of issues involving both executive and judicial "lawmaking." Would the President have the power to "wipe out" Iranian civilization without Congress? Can the President on his own initiative order the postal service to deliver only certain kinds of election-related materials to advance his election integrity agenda? Can the President order the destruction of an entire wing of the White House pursuant to a statute authorizing the making of "alterations" and "improvements"? Our hosts discuss the Constitution's distribution of power between Congress and the President more generally before turning to the threat district courts currently pose with their judicial lawmaking. Do judges have a right to stop the building of the new ballroom? Who even has "standing" to bring such a suit? And why are district courts exercising jurisdiction over immigration decisions where Congress's statute specifically divests courts of jurisdiction? Finally our hosts talk about the First Amendment and the 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which invalidated a crazy Colorado law prohibiting talk therapists from discouraging gender transitions. 

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, devote their episode to election integrity and the meaning of "election day." Does a federal "election day" preempt state laws providing that ballots can still be received days after the election? Is someone "elected" once the final selection is made by the voters, or when those selections are transmitted to election officials? Or perhaps it's only when the count is done? Our hosts penetrate this thicket of possibilities, and discuss the surprising history of the uniform election day -- voter fraud! Our hosts explore the "great frauds" that were committed in the Election of 1840, how Congress responded, and how many election laws exist to prevent opportunities for fraud. Our hosts also break down some recent legal immigration news -- including what it means to "arrive in" the United States for purposes of seeking asylum -- before tying the topics together with their guest, Mateo Forero from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who talks about FAIR's blockbuster report on the connection between illegal immigration policies and proven instances of voter fraud. 

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, break down what they just heard at the Supreme Court oral argument over President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They prognosticate on the result. Wong Kim Ark will not decide this case. Justice Barrett will be the critical vote: what is her theory of what connects ambassadors, invaders, and Indian tribes? What is the government's theory of domicile? What is the plaintiffs' theory of extraterritoriality? They are joined in the second half by guest Theo Wold, one of the architects of the executive order when he worked for the first Trump administration. What is at stake? Why does this issue feel so existential? What's next if the Supreme Court rules against Trump? Tune in and enjoy this emergency pod.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, finally take their promised deep dive into the birthright citizenship case that the Supreme Court will hear next week. Ilan recently testified in Congress on the issue, and has a lot to get off his chest. He and Kathryn discuss Peter Schweizer's testimony about Saipan, an island north of Guam for which there is statutory birthright citizenship and lax visa rules for Chinese citizens. Schweizer estimates that upwards of hundreds of thousands of children might have been born in Saipan to Chinese parents who would now be American citizens if the conventional wisdom prevails. They talk about legislative solutions to problems that might occur if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump Administration, including using Congress's naturalization power. They observe how the Democrats had mostly emotional arguments at the hearing. Ilan talks about his argument: how at common law, the test was not birth alone, but rather birth to parents under the sovereign's protection. He explains how consent was a precondition to protection, and protection was necessary to jurisdiction. Ilan talks about his disagreement with Chuck Cooper, who thinks Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Our hosts then talk about the government's argument about temporary sojourners, and whether we're allowed to cite as evidence sources written by people in the past who held racist views. They talk about some amicus briefs, including Akhil Amar's "under the flag" brief, which obscures more than it helps. Finally, they talk about Adrian Vermeule's post in the New Digest, arguing that the nature of republics and general principles of jurisprudence answer the question at hand better than originalism can. 

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Show Notes/Resources:

Listen to Ilan's opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Ilan's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.

The Invisible Coup by Peter Schweizer.

National security amicus brief by Joshua Steinman.

Akhil Amar's amicus brief.

Adrian Vermeule on birthright citizenship and originalism.

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, are joined by conservative law students at the podcast’s first ever live taping, at ASU. The hosts tackle one of the most important and controversial legal issues of the day: the asymmetrical lawfare and “barfare” against Trump and Republicans. Does the left play by the rule of law? Do they like the rule of law for themselves, but not for others? Should conservatives start playing by their rules? In terms of legal doctrine, should they embrace an aggressive version of substantive of due process? Common good constitutionalism? Our hosts tackle the recent Korean Spa case out of the Ninth Circuit with the now famous “swinging d—-“ reference. Finally, they talk more about birthright citizenship and take questions from the audience. 

In this bonus episode, our host, law professor Ilan Wurman, gives a talk to a conference of conservative law students on Trump vs. the courts. Are we in a constitutional crisis? Is it because the executive is disrespecting the courts, or because the courts are disrespecting the executive? Can the President ever ignore a court order? What if the court doesn't have jurisdiction? Who decides that question? And what can courts do better to respect the President and ensure they have jurisdiction? Our host makes some suggestions about causes of actions and injunctions. Please enjoy this special bonus episode of Rationally BASED.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, are joined by special guest host Will Chamberlain. They take a deep dive into the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case and study it as a microcosm of immigration law and the immigration bar. What is the difference between asylum and withholding of removal? Can Kilmar be deported to a third country? Why can't the government detain him? Are district judges playing interference and engaging in lawfare against the Trump Administration? Do immigration lawyers coach their clients to lie? What are the Supreme Court's leading precedents about "due process" and detention? They also discuss a crazy case out of the Third Circuit where the lower courts held not only that the Biden Administration couldn't detain illegal aliens pending deportation even if they had committed serious crimes, but also that the U.S. taxpayers had to pay their attorney's fees. Finally, our hosts talk about Trump's crusade against big law -- and why they think big law does need to be brought to heel.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson and Grace Keating, take a deep dive into the legal questions surrounding the military strikes in Iran and the earlier capture of Maduro. What is international law? Is it really "law"? What is "law" anyway? Hear our hosts talk about the surprising connection to basketball. But even if it's law, should we care about it? What does that have to do with the President's constitutional authority? Our hosts investigate the Office of Legal Counsel's modern framework for engaging in military strikes without congressional authorization, which was used to justify strikes in Libya in 2011. If those strikes can be used to eliminate Libya's leader, why not Venezuela's or Iran's? But, is that modern legal framework consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution? Our hosts explore all that and more - including the political implications of the strikes.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, take a deep dive into the Supreme Court's recent decision invalidating many of the Trump Tariffs enacted under IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Are tariffs taxes? Or can they be used for regulatory purposes? Our hosts cover the question from the perspective of the American Revolution through the twentieth century. Putting the statutory question aside, what should we do now that the statute used to have a legislative veto, but such vetoes have been held to be unconstitutional? What about the nondelegation doctrine? The "Major Questions Doctrine"? Our hosts break it down. And are the three Democrat-appointed Justices hypocrites for ruling in favor of sweeping delegations to President Biden, but reading IEEPA narrowly? What's Gorsuch's beef with everyone? Finally, our hosts take a look at the origins of "originalism" and Jeffrey Toobin's NYT article about the American Constitution Society's radical plan to remake the Supreme Court. (Spoiler alert: there is no plan.)

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED:  @RationallyBasedPodcast

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson and Grace Keating, start this episode with major news out of the EPA: it has rescinded the Obama-era "endangerment" finding the supported the regulation of C02. Find out how EPA came to regulate this greenhouse gas in the first place, whether it's really a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and whether Massachusetts ever had standing to bring a lawsuit in the first place over claims that it might lose some coastline. Our hosts revisit the Fifth Circuit decision and some fallout, and address whether it violates due process or the Eighth Amendment. (It almost certainly doesn't.) Finally, our hosts continue their discussion of birthright citizenship, connecting the concept of "protection" to "jurisdiction."

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED:  @RationallyBasedPodcast

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, or TikTok