This week on Law Talk, professors Yoo and Epstein (presided over by Troy Senik) banter about Wisconsin's collective bargaining law being overturned, the future of public-sector workers, and the Posner-Scalia feud. Then they wrap it all up by refereeing a Member Feed fight on the constitutionality of secession.
It's now perfectly legal for everyone to subscribe to Law Talk and take it with you on your mobile device. Follow the instructions here.
Looking for an audio book? Try one from Audible on us. Go to AudiblePodcast.com/LawTalk
The flag on EJHill for unnecessary roughness is now under review.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: The Replacements
music music. What is the closing song?! It's something I have known all my life but don't know the name or who it's by
Mar '11
Re: The Replacements
By the way, awesome podcast. As a 'Southerner By Choice', I have always felt that the state's inability to secede was a nonstarter. While I still agree that the states did have the right, John's explanation of his position did make me understand that there is an argument to be made on the other side. I still don't agree though.
Re: The Replacements
Kind of A Drag by The Buckinghams.
Apr '11
Re: The Replacements
EJ Hill is THE MAN!!!
May '10
Re: The Replacements
unrelated but a question for the two legal gurus. News today is that Dept. of Agriculture is going to give out $1.3+Billion to Female and Hispanic farmers that "feel" they have been discriminated against - without having to prove their claims. How is this legal?
Would the Govt. be able to grant me $1,000,000 because I felt that I had been disadvantaged and deserved it, since my tax dollars are principally used domestically and I have lived overseas for 20 years? Or because I feel disadvantaged for not having enough success because of......whatever?
Sep '10
Re: The Replacements
I'm very impressed by this photoshop, especially integrating angles of photos that look right for the body angles of the refs.
Apr '11
Re: The Replacements
And I thought the assignment was based on skin tone match and abdominal spare tire.
Feb '11
Re: The Replacements
It’s amazing, but both Professors got the secession question wrong. First, I don’t see how Professor Yoo can claim that the foundation of the country preceded the Constitution and can be traced to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence begins with: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and what it declares is “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” The declaration is made by “the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, . . ., in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies.” Note the lowercase “united” and “these” rather than “the.” The Declaration of Independence no more created a country than the charter of the United Nations. It’s the act of a congress of independent states.
The Articles of Confederation didn’t change this. Everything permitted by the Articles is done by the “United States in Congress assembled.” Not until “We the People of the United States” adopted the Constitution was there a government of a nation rather than a confederation of states.
Feb '11
Re: The Replacements
Professor Epstein was wrong to endorse Calhoun’s claim that the Constitution is analogous to a partnership. A partnership creates a multilateral agency: every partner has the power to act for the partnership. For example, any partner could enter into a contract on behalf of the partnership, and it would bind all the other partners. Every partner would have general liability for the contract: each be personally liable for any breach of the contract. It’s easy to see why every partner has the right to unilaterally withdraw from the partnership. It’s the only way to terminate the agency and limit the partner’s liability.
But our Union is almost the opposite of a partnership. Rather than giving any state the power to bind the other states (in a treaty for example), the states gave up some of their powers to a central authority (e.g., Art. I, Sec. 10). A state cannot act for itself in such matters, much less act for other states. This more closely resembles a corporation than a partnership. As Professor Epstein knows, at common law, if the charter is silent on the matter, a shareholder or member cannot unilaterally withdraw from a corporation.