George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why congressional Democrats should not support President-elect Trump’s proposal of a large public infrastructure rebuilding program. Buchanan argues that instead, Democrats should demand support for voting rights in exchange for their support for his infrastructure spending.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why President-elect Donald Trump’s conflicts of interests are problematic for the country. Dorf argues that the primary risk is that a Trump administration will pursue policies that further Trump’s business interests at the expense of the national interest. Dorf also points out two other risks posed by Trump’s conflicts of interest: the possibility of unjust enrichment and the cultural shift that corruption at the top could catalyze.
Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, describes three individuals named to lead Donald Trump’s presidency who will threaten already-vulnerable communities. Hamilton argues that Mike Pence, Stephen Bannon, and Jeffrey Sessions are likely to reduce or eliminate the rights of gays, women, minorities, and children over the next four years unless the private sector steps up.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar proposes a solution to the problem of the “faithless” elector—a person who pledges to vote in a particular way but then who wants to cast his or her electoral college vote in a different direction. Amar provides specific language that states could implement as law to address these rogue individuals whose actions could alter a presidential election result.
In the aftermath of the presidential election, George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers what it would mean on the ground for the rule of law to be eroded to the point of obliteration. Buchanan describes how Trump and Republican might play constitutional hardball in a manner that spells the end of the rule of law.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf shares some of the lessons he has learned as a vegan animal rights advocate, and explains how they apply to other policy areas. In particular, Dorf argues that in order to build a world in which presidential candidates do not pander to humanity’s basest otherizing instincts, we should aim to persuade our fellow humans of our point of view, not merely to organize to outvote them.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes the typical pattern in politics of quiescence and backlash. As Margulies explains, it is natural for the supporters of the winning candidate to reach a sense of quiescence after the election, while the supporters of the losing candidate formulate a backlash. Margulies points out that this pattern exists regardless of whether the winning candidate is a Republican or a Democrat.
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, discusses the possible consequences of the many lawsuits involving President-elect Donald Trump on his presidency. Dean explains why Trump’s situation is different from other presidents-elect who carried civil lawsuits with them into the Oval Office—Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.
Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, explains how Republicans’ victories for president and both houses of Congress impose real accountability on the Republican party to get things done. Hamilton argues that with Republicans controlling these branches, they have no excuse for failing to fully come through on all the changes they have promised, including replacing Obamacare, building a wall on the Mexican border, creating jobs, and cutting taxes.
Illinois law dean and law professor Vikram David Amar describes three takeaway lessons from FBI Director James Comey’s decision to comment on the ongoing Clinton email investigation a second time. Amar argues that (1) with respect to investigators, sometimes less formal independence means more latitude to act out, (2) the FBI director should not operate outside of DOJ bounds, and (3) the DOJ policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations arises from the Constitution.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the 2016 election is an opportunity for young voters to have the unusual opportunity to make a difference in their future. Buchanan argues that voting for Hillary Clinton is the only way to exercise that power in a way that gives young people hope for a positive future.
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, takes a close look at Donald Trump’s twofold strategy to win the election—Trump’s own electoral map, and his attempts to suppress voters. Dean argues that the only way for Trump to win is to bully his way into the White House, and Dean calls upon Democrats to prevent Trump and his supporters from using physical intimidation to suppress the vote.
Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses the connection between an educated society and a successful, effective representative democracy. Hamilton argues that a significant reason that uneducated voters are more likely to vote for Donald Trump than educated voters are highlights this country’s failure to ensure that every student is adequately educated, particularly with respect to government.
Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and California civil litigation attorney Michael Schaps address two common misconceptions about the relationship between criminal law and politics that recently arose in the presidential race. Amar and Schaps explain first why the presumption of innocence does not apply to politics, and second, why the president actually does have the power to order prosecutions.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how news outlets are stretching to try to make news out of the contents of the Clinton campaign emails released by WikiLeaks. Buchanan argues that the emails reveal nothing remarkable or problematic about the Clinton campaign’s inner workings and in fact support her claim of fitness for presidency.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies compares and contrasts Donald Trump’s call for Hillary Clinton’s imprisonment and the same call against George W. Bush. Although he disagrees with both attempts to seek prosecution, Margulies argues that the call for Clinton’s imprisonment is at best akin to a lynch mob, whereas at least the desire to have Bush prosecuted reflects a good-faith attempt to use the law to punish war crimes.
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, comments on Donald Trump’s recent calls for the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton. Dean points out that jailing political opponents is a tactic of dictators, not democracies.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and University of Pittsburgh law professor Deborah L. Brake analyze the infamous video of Donald Trump boasting about what he can do to women, as well as the response of the Trump campaign. Grossman and Brake argue that Trump’s words in the video, and his non-apology following its release, epitomize the formula that creates rape-prone culture: deny harm, deflect responsibility, and normalize what happened.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Boston University law professor Linda C. McClain discuss the sexism that pervades Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Grossman and McClain comment not only on the presidential debates, but also on the bigger question whether (and how) a woman can be perceived as “presidential.”
Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda argues that, in the interest of protecting free speech, the Attorneys General of New York and Massachusetts should comply with congressional subpoenas investigating whether the state attorneys general are part of a corrupt agreement with private interests seeking to harass. Rotunda argues that the state attorneys general are effectively chilling the free speech of scientists who question the validity of the theory that humans contribute to global warming.