He freed the slaves -- which Rob's argument would hold to be unconstitutional -- but only because they provided vital labor for the South's war effort, and only in the areas still under rebellion,  and only for as long as the Civil War lasted.  Permanent, nationwide emancipation of the slaves still required the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Lincoln did not attempt to change domestic society or legal rules that were unrelated to the war, such as the Homestead or college land grant acts, without Congress's cooperation.  If anything, I think that Lincoln used his Commander-in-Chief powers judiciously and within their constitutional limits.

(2/2)

I see Rob is in cahoots again with the Southern historians, from which he must have learned through osmosis while sleeping in class.

But seriously, what aspect of his Commander-in-Chief power did Lincoln overstep? If the nation is at war, the Commander-in-Chief should possess the power necessary to defeat the enemy.  No more and no less.  That power lasts only as long as the war, and goes no farther than needed to undertake reasonable military measures to prevail in the conflict. 

So Lincoln raised an army and sent it into the South, put up a naval blockade, and authorized the detention of confederates -- but he did so because the South launched the hostilities that put the nation at war.  He directed his generals, removed those who were incompetent, and approved the strategies of the successful -- traditional powers of commanders-in-chief. 

(1/2)

By the time the podcast is over, the magazine should be empty and the slide back, because I'm all out of ammo.

Happy Birthday Richard!  You don't look a day over 69.

My favorite Epstein line was from our last Uncommon Knowledge on the Supreme Court, hosted by our very own Peter Robinson.  At some point, Richard had me tangled in knots, so I blurted out:

"Even if the Supreme Court was made up of 9 Richard Epstein's, it would still decide most cases 5-4."

Greatest. Photo. Ever.

There were two Senators there, Ron Johnson and Jeff Sessions.  And I left the conference thinking, while things in the nation are pretty bad, if the Framers' constitutional system still produces men and women with that much common sense, knowledge, and integrity to lead us, there is still hope.

I love meeting the listeners at these conferences way more than the speakers.  And the best of these, as Troy suggests, was someone who was a "food chemist."  I did not know that these jobs existed, but now they are my new favorite profession.  The woman worked on Gerber's baby food and the Manwhich.  For those unschooled in the canned meats, the Manwhich is a sloppy joe in a can.  I bowed before her great contributions to American culture (cradle-to-grave, as it were), and then we agreed -- much to Troy's upset -- that the McRib is a wonderful food product designed after much study and effort to replicate BBQ for those stuck far from good Southern barbecue.  After all, McDonald's spends hundreds of millions a year to figure out exactly what our neolithic tastebuds want -- resistance would be futile.   Of course, we had this conversation while eating the fanciest burrito's known to man overlooking the Pacific Ocean and listening to Ben Stein. 

Yes, we must "smoke out" Senik and his unorthodox views on food.  

I don't mind more extensive background checks that include mental illness. Indeed, I would be tempted to propose that anyone with a serious history of mental illness be barred from purchasing a firearm. A court could make the determination if the individual wishes to contest an initial finding by a medical doctor.

That is a great, related question: can a treaty go beyond Congress's Article I legislative powers.  I think we can all agree that treaties cannot go beyond the Constitution, though there are some who have suggested it from time to time.  But could a treaty go beyond the federal government's ordinary legislative powers, as the Supreme Court seemed to suggest in Missouri v. Holland (in the case of migratory birds)?  The Law of the Sea Treaty may well raise that issue, as you suggest.

And that's how I look when I'm losing.  Just don't tell mom I was gambling -- whoops, that fashion magazine spread isn't going to help.  What a great Christmas present from New York City.

You learn a lot about people when they gamble -- take Obama, for example.  Just kidding, I think.  I sat with Blue Yeti for awhile, who displayed a sorry resignation to his fate.  He enjoyed informing me that the odds were always in the House's favor (I guess, in this case, the boat's).

For some reason, I could get neither Long nor Robinson to join me at the tables.  They both looked at me as if I was a naive optimist for gambling. But then, who  embarked on this crazy website that is trying to redefine the nature of political commentary on the internet -- and as a profitable business, no less!

EJHill didn't get my facepaint just right.  For any Eagles fan, the only other team that comes close in spirit is the Oakland Raiders.

The progressive left would love to rule through international institutions, if they could.  As Woodrow Wilson first recognized, the Constitution's separation of powers and federalism stand as a barrier to the enactment of sweeping social reform.  Some liberals have sought to bring laws down from supranational institutions and international law into the United States, which would effectively avoid the Constitution's checks on centralized power.  Many academics support this move, and several of the movement's leading lights are now or have been serving in the Obama administration.  This effort to use international treaties and law to sidestep the Constitution is the concern of my latest book, Taming Globalization, which came out in April.  Luckily, so far, the Supreme Court and Congress have resisted this trend, and there is an important case on the Supreme Court docket this fall involving the Alien Tort Statute which will determine whether the Court will continue to contain the domestic effects of international law.

This EJHill special may get me banned in my native land.

Pilli,I would send in the navy and the marines and, while we cannot take over Egypt's customs houses as TR would have, we should cut off aid to Egypt and Libya and think about tougher measures, such as a threat to block commerce, to force their governments to hand over those responsible. 

Never fear, Peter, the federal government is near.  I am sure that the Federal Aviation Administration will never pass up a chance to regulate something that flies.  But if the FAA does not, and even if it does, the states should have primary responsibility for figuring out the privacy rules for drones.  States regulate the rules for cars and driving, and I don't see why they shouldn't have the same authority for drones.