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.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why, with the information that we currently have, there is no way to determine whether Donald Trump’s tax strategies were legal or illegal. Buchanan argues that regardless of the answer to that question, there are still too many special provisions for people like Trump—particularly with respect to the real estate sector.
Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses the decreased emphasis on affiliation with organized religion this election cycle. Although this may seem unusual in light of a more dedicated focus on religion in past elections, Hamilton explains that this lack of attention in the 2016 election harkens back to an earlier era of American history when many of our constitutional framers professed a Deist view of religion—and is ultimately a positive development for our country.
Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda evaluates the claims of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton about the country’s economic gains over the past eight years and finds that those claims lack support. Rotunda argues that the numbers indicate that the policy of federal government intervention has not worked as well as Clinton and Obama claim.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan revisits Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies in his latest column. Buchanan summarizes these policies and explains why they are counterintuitive to the reality of today’s improving U.S. economy. Trump merely repeats the same talking points and claims the economy will continue to falter without the benefit of his leadership, despite all evidence to the contrary. This, Buchanan notes, offers Hillary Clinton the opportunity to present a positive counter-view and gain much-needed momentum leading up to the election.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explores US presidential candidate Donald Trump’s frequently changing economic policy announcements. Buchanan highlights why Trump’s proposed policies are difficult to assess by noting that most lack sufficient detail to predict how they might work in practice. Buchanan also evaluates Trump’s statements, to the extent possible, compares them to Hillary Clinton’s positions on the same issues, and explains where Trump’s would ultimately fall short, should he win this November.
Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses the continued endangering of children in the United States, specifically in the realm of politics. She suggests a simple solution after illustrating recent examples of this troubling trend: voters must choose political candidates who protect children via their stances on relevant laws and other related political matters.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why young Americans and black Americans should not believe Trump’s (and Republicans’) claims that they have nothing to lose by dismantling Social Security and Medicare. Buchanan describes the so-called reduced benefits scenario that could happen in the unlikely event that the trust balance reaches zero and contrasts that with the enhanced benefits that could result from a Clinton presidency.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the widely accepted phenomenon in United States elections known as the “pivot,” whereby candidates in both parties change positions between the primary and general elections to appeal to the voters in those particular elections. Dorf explains why candidates commonly pivot, and why general acceptance of this practice should be troubling.
Former counsel to President Nixon, John W. Dean argues that comparisons between former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are inapt. Dean points out several ways in which Hillary’s behavior did not rise even to the level of that of McDonnell, and the U.S. Supreme Court found that even the latter did not support conviction.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on Donald Trump’s inclusion of Brexit provocateur Nigel Farage as a speaker at a rally in Mississippi. Buchanan argues that the presence of such an openly anti-immigrant, whites-first agitator alongside Trump can mean only one thing about Trump’s own campaign for president.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why both major and minor parties would benefit from changing to an instant runoff voting system. As Dorf explains, such a system would allow people to vote for their first-choice candidate (including third parties) without the risk of incidentally aiding their last-choice candidate.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies argues that anyone who calls for violence—whether from the Right or the Left—must take responsibility for the violence that inevitably, even if unintentionally, results.
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, discusses the charges of perjury and false statements brought against Hillary Clinton by congressional Republicans led by Bob Goodlatte and Jason Chaffetz. Dean closely scrutinizes the facts underlying the charges and concludes that the charges are utterly baseless and manifest an abuse of power beyond the pale of dirty politics.