Constitutional Chats Presented By Constituting America

Back in April, we discussed the Chevron Doctrine and the power it gave to unelected officials in various agencies.  This doctrine allowed agencies to rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous law.  In the recent Loper Bright decision, the Supreme Court struck down this doctrine.  To help our student panel understand the long term ramifications of this decision, we are delighted to welcome back Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for this timely discussion.

Back in May, we discussed a Supreme Court case that was about to be decided regarding actions local governments had taken regarding homelessness encampments in public spaces, in their cities.  Late last month, the Supreme Court sided 6-3 with the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, ruling their laws did not violate the 8th amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.  Returning from that previous show, we are thrilled to welcome back Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, as he discusses the ramifications of this U.S. Supreme Court decision with our student panel.

As with most Supreme Court decisions, the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity is both complex and misunderstood. The Court had to rule on what level of immunity the President has in regard to his official duties as President. This case involves a complex series of rulings from various courts but we are thankful to have returning as our guest, former US Attorney and retired Navy JAG officer Charles “Cully” Stimson. Cully will help our all-star student panel unravel the complexities of this landmark Supreme Court case.

This week we celebrate the spirit of the American people! A country’s identity is directly tied to its people.  A good way to gauge the characteristics and spirit of a country’s people is to look at the country from an outsider’s perspective.  That’s exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville did when he came to America in 1831.  The French-born aristocrat traveled extensively around our country and in 1835 wrote of his observations and experiences in “Democracy in America.” What can we learn from his observations?  Are his observations still relevant nearly 200 years later?  To help us further understand the importance and relevance of de Tocqueville’s writings, we are pleased to welcome Dr. Pete Peterson, Dean of Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, to the chat today.

When you hear the term “the American Dream” what do you think of first?  Homeownership?  Going to college?  Having a great job?  Safe communities?  All are correct answers.  What is amazing about that dream is that it can be unique to each of us, yet is something we all collectively enjoy in this country. Think about this.  Our Constitution does not specifically mention the American Dream, but it protects the freedoms to pursue it. The American Dream did not happen by accident and our guest argues it’s largely driven by economic liberty.  To find out why, join our student panel and our special guest, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel, for this fascinating discussion!

Our country is one of unimaginable beauty.  From snow-capped mountain peaks to arid deserts to peaceful beaches, our varied landscapes have spoken to our soul as a nation for generations.  Our country currently preserves 63 sites with the “national park” designation, with a total of 429 sites in the system.  To help us better understand the history and significance of these locales, we are delighted to welcome two guests to our chat this week.  Linda Harvey is a former Deputy Director of the National Park Service.  Karla Morton is the 2010 Texas Poet Laureate and has written extensive poetry about our national parks in her book, “National Parks: A Century of Grace.”

We admit it.  We are big fans of federalism.  Regular listeners will understand that Constitution grants certain rights to the federal government and courtesy of the 10th amendment, remaining powers are reserved for the states.  Does this mean federalism is a function of recognition of states’ rights?  Our special guest argues this characterization is better suited if we view federalism as a function of decentralized and self-government as it relies on local authority.  Join our guest, Dr. William B. Allen, Emeritus Professor of Political Philosophy and Dean of James Madison College at Michigan State University, and our student panel for this enlightening conversation on federalism.

As Americans, do we sometimes have a tendency to take freedom for granted?  When it’s something most of us have lived with our entire lives, the answer is assuredly yes.  That’s to be expected as we can’t fully comprehend what it is to live without. But ask anyone born under a dictator or totalitarian regime and they quickly remind of us of the blessings of liberty, since they once lived without it.  To help remind us of this blessing of freedom, we are honored to have Ambassador Aldona Woś.  Polish born, Ambassador Woś served as the US Ambassador to Estonia during the George W. Bush Administration and is currently the President of the Institute for World Politics. Her personal story is a compelling reminder that freedom is not free, nor is it permanent. 

The 16th Amendment gives power to congress to “lay and collect taxes.”  After all, a country has to have an ability to raise revenue. When it comes to that revenue, we have had a tradition of paying taxes on income, not the value of an investment, like paying taxes when we sell a few shares of stock in a company and not on the growth of that stock every year we own it.  Those are called realized gains.  There is discussion in the federal government to change that and tax unrealized gains meaning we would have to pay taxes on the increase in value in our homes or investments even before we sell that possession.  The genesis of this Supreme Court case was a provision in the tax cuts package passed and signed into law in 2017 to help pay for those cuts.  We know, tax code and tax law are confusing.  Fortunately, to help us navigate this confusing topic, we have a very special guest with an impressive legal career.  Paul Clement is the country’s former Solicitor General (the Department of Justice’s chief lawyer in front of the Supreme Court), now in private practice.  He has argued more than 100 cases in front of the Supreme Court, more than any other lawyer since 2000, in or out of government.

The Constitution dictates every 10 years we undergo a Census to count how many people live in each state.  Based off these population numbers, congressional seats are then apportioned.  States who lost population might lose a seat and states who grew may gain a seat or two since we can only have 435 total seats in the U.S. House.  This brings up an obvious question: who gets to redraw congressional districts after apportionment and can they redraw those districts for a political benefit?  This is where gerrymandering comes into play.  According to our guest expert, “gerrymandering” is drawing districts that are perceived to be unfair in their representation.  To further complicate the issue, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 placed restrictions on how these districts are redrawn and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have further altered this process.  The current Supreme Court case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has the potential to challenge again how districts are redrawn. It’s a complicated issue but we are grateful to have as our guest Mark Braden, an attorney with BakerHostetler who specializes in election law and voting issues to help us navigate this issue.

City Councils all across the country have been tackling an issue that has bipartisan concern: how to tackle homeless populations within their cities.  Grants Pass, OR., is one such city.  Grants Pass is in the middle of the Supreme Court case Johnson v. Grants Pass that is challenging that city’s ability to levy civil and criminal punishments to deter homeless encampments.  A Supreme Court decision is expected this summer.  To help our student panel understand the broad implications of this Supreme Court case and the “strait jacket” put on cities by lower courts to enforce their ordinances, we are delighted to welcome Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation for this timely chat.

Trial by jury and fair court proceedings bound by constitutional restraint are bedrock principles of our federal government.  Imagine being charged with a crime by a federal agency except the agency handles the entire court proceedings with a judge on its payroll.  The Securities and Exchange Commission was created by a 1934 act in response to the Great Depression and Stock Market Crash of 1929.  In 2008, in response to the financial crisis, its powers were significantly expanded through the Dodd Frank Act.  Under that legislation, the SEC was allowed to have in-house court proceedings with administrative law judges it hires.  As such, prosecutorial, judicial, enforcement and punishment power is all held within a singular agency.  A current Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, is challenging that power.  Join our all-star student panel and our special guest, Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we discuss this case, its ramifications and the caution George Washington gave us when he spoke against unfair quasi-courts.

In February of this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Ohio v. EPA.  This case challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Good Neighbor Plan which aims to curb pollution carried by the wind into neighboring states. As usual, legal proceedings can easily become confusing as a lawsuit makes its way to the Supreme Court.  Fortunately, we are welcoming back Steve Bradbury, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, to help us unravel this case as we discuss the background and ramifications of this lawsuit.

Federally, we have 536 elected positions between Congress and the President.  We then have 2.8 million federal employees.  How do we limit the power among the unelected officials we have in our federal government?  To tackle this very important question, the Supreme Court introduced the Chevron Doctrine (also called the Chevron Deference) as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.  To help us understand the complexities of the Chevron Doctrine, how the powers of unelected officials have grown over the years and how current cases before the Supreme Court may affect these powers, we are happy to welcome to our discussion Jack Fitzhenry, Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Presidential immunity is in the news a lot lately.  It derives from a notion that all three branches of government retain powers to execute their duties under the constitution.  But there is also a tradition in our country that no one is above the law.  In a nation that follows established law, not following those laws can lead to anarchy or distrust in the government.  We have a lot to unpack with this very timely and relevant topic. To help us do so alongside our student panel, we are delighted to welcome fan-favorite guest Adam Carrington, associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

Did you know the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear four cases pertaining to social media this term?  One of the major issues is whether or not an elected official has the authority to limit speech on social media accounts by blocking critical comments pertaining to their work in office.  We know government cannot prohibit your speech, but are elected officials required to permit all comments on their official pages, or can they censor them? What about their personal pages?  Can the government pressure social media companies to take down posts the government seems “misinformation”? There’s a lot to unpack with these various cases so we are delighted to welcome Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University’s Commonwealth Law School for this very timely discussion.

Who is the Speaker of the House and what are his duties?  How does a bill become law?  What are the three branches of government.  Let’s be honest, so many in our country are not fully educated on civics.    If we don’t understand how Congress works, we get frustrated with the whole process.  This leads to an overall sentiment that Congress is broken.  Our guest today likes to say “without public trust, you cannot govern.  Without governing, people get angry and hostile and walk away from the system.” Today, joining our student panel to discuss how we can begin to fix this, is our special guest Michael S. Johnson, author of “Fixing Congress: Restoring Power to the People.”

Winning a war was just the beginning for George Washington’s service to our new country.  After retiring to Mount Vernon post-war, Washington saw a weakness in our country under the Articles of Confederation.  He felt the future of republican democratic self-government globally was dependent on the American experiment.  If it were to fail in that perfect post-war moment, man was probably not destined to govern himself. Washington’s views on what the government should look like can seem to be contradictory in that he wanted a strong central government, as opposed to what the country had under the Articles of Confederation, but he also wanted the National government to be limited.  Rather than contradictory, this reveals a principled man.  To discuss Washington’s vision for the country with our student panel, we are delighted to welcome back Tony Williams, Senior Teaching Fellow with the Bill of Rights Institute for this historical conversation.

The relationship between the federal and state governments is not always clear.  These two governments exist simultaneously but at times have different goals and objectives.  The federal government can use its purse strings to coerce a state government to take an action and that state can simply refuse.  The Founders wanted states to solve major issues that were not under the federal purview to establish “laboratories of democracy.”  Joining our all-star student panel, we are happy to welcome Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia state senator,  Virginia attorney general and Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, as we discuss this unique relationship.

Can you name the President?  We hope yes!  Can you name your state’s governor?  More than likely yes.  But can you name your mayor and city council members?  While the issues nationally get the most attention, your local government’s actions impact your day-to-day life more.  Issues like your water supply, trash pickup, sewage, and police and fire departments are all controlled by local entities.  Some mayors aren’t paid a salary at all but one defining feature of mayors is they come directly out of the community in which they are serving.  They are your friend and neighbor.  To help us better grasp the importance of local officials, we are delighted to welcome Andrew Wambsganss, former mayor of Southlake, TX., to our podcast as we discuss the duties and responsibilities of local government officials, and why he says you can have the most impact by local government participation.