Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar considers whether the recent purported ratifications by Nevada and Illinois of the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution, proposed in 1972, have any legal effect. Amar proposes seven questions and answers raised by these states’ actions and argues that even if a 38th state were to ostensibly ratify that amendment (the number needed to amend the Constitution), it could not be considered part of the Constitution.

GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan writes a letter that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could have written (but didn’t) in response to allegations that he sexually assaulted and attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was a 17-year-old high school student. Using a fictional letter as a rhetorical device, Buchanan points out that Kavanaugh could have acknowledged that he, like anyone who has ever drunk to excess, does not recall exactly what he did or did not do while drunk, particularly on the night in question, but instead, Kavanaugh flatly denied that the allegations could be true. Buchanan argues that Kavanaugh’s response to the allegations demonstrates that he does not belong on the US Supreme Court.

John W. Dean, former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon, shares the statement he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2018, during the confirmation hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Dean also argues that Judge Kavanaugh’s denials of lying under oath in his earlier 2004 and 2006 confirmation proceedings, and the fact that he must now lie under oath again to get confirmed to the Supreme Court, have disqualified him for the job.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether a vegan generally, and New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker specifically, would have a shot of winning the presidency in 2020. Dorf explains how food plays an important role in politics and considers whether the election of a vegan to the highest office in the land is likely to hurt or help the vegan movement.

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler considers what options the International Criminal Court (ICC) has in light of harsh criticism by US National Security Advisor John Bolton, and what the ICC’s end game will be. Specifically, Wexler considers three possibilities and the likelihood of each.

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law, critically reviews of Bob Woodward’s Fear: Trump in the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2018), finding that while the book adds considerable detail to our portrait of Trump’s behavior in office, it overlooks (or ignores) much of the larger picture of President Trump’s character, career, and presidency. Falvy takes a close look at both the substance and style of Fear, delving into the strengths and limitations of Woodward’s “free indirect” style of narrative as well as the substance of his insider interviews, especially that of Trump’s former personal attorney John Dowd. Falvy predicts that Dowd’s statement to Woodward that Trump is a habitual liar lays the groundwork for a final line of defense for Trump: that even Trump’s own statements cannot be reliable evidence of obstruction of justice or other crimes.

Marci A. Hamilton, professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, calls upon Congress to dissolve and reconstitute the United States Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics due to their inept handling of child sex abuse within those organizations. Hamilton points out that private organizations have boards of directors who shoulder responsibility for correcting actions of their organizations, but Congress must act when the bad actors are within national governmental bodies (NGBs) such as USOC and USA Gymnastics.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb describes the evolution of the phrase “factory farming” from its original meaning of animal agriculture generally, to a much narrower (and less meaningful) definition today. Colb points out that descriptors of so-called “humane” animal agriculture practices—organic, local, sustainable, grass fed, cage free, and similar phrases—are not meaningfully better than the supposedly evil factory farming. Colb draws an analogy to the misogynist’s argument that “violent rape” is distinguishable and “worse” than other types of rape.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by a Republican-appointed federal judge striking down (yet another) unconstitutional Texas law that would have required embryonic and fetal remains to be given a “proper” burial. Grossman explains that the judge correctly found the Texas law would have placed an undue burden on women while its purported benefits were “de minimis” at best, in violation of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies explains how the recent anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times underscores the fundamental continuity between the Obama and Trump administrations on issues of national security. As Margulies observes, our approach to national security in the post-9/11 world has achieved hegemonic status, but we should hope that some future president might not share the same hegemonic view of transnational terror and instead may try to set national security on a different course.

In this second part of a series of columns, GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers how the United States, and indeed the world, would shift substantially to the right with a Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Buchanan explains not only what might change, but how we can expect that change to come about, as well.

Sixty-five years after the deaths of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Touro Law Center professor Rodger Citron reviews Howard Blum’s In the Enemy’s House: The Secret Saga of the FBI Agent and the Code Breaker Who Caught the Russian Spies (HarperCollins 2018). Citron describes how Blum’s telling of the story adds to the story of the Rosenbergs by focusing on Bob Lamphere and Meredith Gardner—two men who pursued Soviet spies for years—and explains how the story of the Rosenbergs has continued relevance today.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why President Trump can unilaterally undermine NAFTA but cannot act to replace it without help from Congress. Dorf distinguishes treaties from “congressional-executive agreements” (NAFTA is an example of the latter), and he points out that any new agreement Trump seeks to enter with Canada and Mexico that differs in any substantial way from NAFTA can only become effective upon the passage of new legislation by Congress.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses the controversy over the so-called “independent investigation” into Ohio State’s football coach Urban Meyer’s handling of domestic violence allegations against one of his longtime assistant coaches, Zach Smith. Amar explains that the investigation is hardly “independent” in any sense of the word when it is funded by the very organization (the university) who has the greatest interest in its findings, and he uses the paradigm of the political system to propose an alternative, truly independent option.

Marci A. Hamilton, professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, comments critically on a letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano suggesting that Pope Francis resign because he knew about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick sexually abusing seminarians and did nothing. Hamilton points out that bishops across the United States have been complicit in, or have covered up, countless acts of abuse, and if suddenly now one bishop is calling for everyone who played a part in cover-ups to resign, then it logically follows that the entire Church hierarchy must go.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb describes the recent trend among professors to give “trigger warnings” prior to discussing sensitive materials with students and explains why she has chosen not to provide such warnings to her students. Colb points out that there is no reliable evidence that the warnings work as advertised; rather, they might actually do more harm than good. Colb concludes that an education necessarily means encountering ideas and theories that do not sit well with what one already believes, and students should not have the right to skip days or receive warnings when professors will be talking about unwelcome facts or theories.

Alan Brownstein, an emeritus law professor at UC Davis Law, comments critically on the sole opinion—a dissent—US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has written about the Second Amendment. Brownstein points out two critical fallacies of Judge Kavanaugh’s position with respect to Second Amendment challenges to gun regulations articulated in that dissenting opinion.

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on the recent allegations that Asia Argento—an alleged victim of Harvey Weinstein and vocal #MeToo advocate—committed statutory rape against then-17-year-old Jimmy Bennett. Wexler argues that if the allegations are true and Argento is what is known as a “complex victim,” society should judge Argento neither more harshly, by virtue of the female perpetrator’s violation of traditional gender roles, nor less harshly, simply because she is also a victim, than other complex victims.

GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the notion of a completely “free” market is nonsensical and argues that Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed Accountable Capitalism Act would make capitalism in this country work better. Buchanan points out that there is not a baseline of “no rules” in any society; rather, the government has already simply set certain rules, and those who disproportionately benefit from those rules do not wish them to change.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recently publicized memorandum Brett Kavanaugh wrote in 1998 in the course of his work for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was conducting the investigation of President Bill Clinton. Dorf points out that the sexually explicit questions Kavanaugh proposed in his memo should have been ruled inadmissible under applicable procedural rules. Inspired by Kavanaugh’s own line of questioning, Dorf concludes by proposing a question that he calls upon a senator to ask Judge Kavanaugh during his nomination hearing.