As promised, this week, Professors Epstein and Yoo (ably moderated by host Troy Senik) take your calls. Topics covered include welfare reform, citizenship requirements for federal office holders, no knock warrants, when exactly the U.S. went off the rails and more!
Ricochet members, you have the right to put this podcast on your mobile device and take it any where. Everyone else, listen in above. Not a member? It's the law -- join today.
Looking for an audio book? Try one from Audible on us. Go to AudiblePodcast.com/LawTalk
Image courtesy of ShutterStock.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Calling All Professors
FORWARD slash.
Oct '10
Re: Calling All Professors
More constructively, I though the questions were excellent.
And I'll never read one of Tabula Rasa's posts in quite the same voice ever again...
Nov '11
Re: Calling All Professors
They used my question! As the kids would say w00t!
Feb '11
Re: Calling All Professors
Tabula Rasa sounds like Jimmy Stewart playing Elwood P. Dowd.
Edited on August 10, 2012 at 2:30pmFeb '11
Re: Calling All Professors
Show us with your hand like that guy on Uncommon Knowledge.
Edited on August 10, 2012 at 2:39pmFeb '11
Re: Calling All Professors
So Richard explained that governments can't be sued for mistakes.
Does that mean that you cannot sue an Obamacare government doctor if he does the wrong surgery simply because it has become a government operation?
Nov '11
Re: Calling All Professors
Israel Pickholtz
So Richard explained that governments can't be sued for mistakes.
Does that mean that you cannot sue an Obamacare government doctor if he does the wrong surgery simply because it has become a government operation? · 55 minutes ago
Depends on the mistake. And he didn't clarify if any action could be brought at all.
Mar '11
Re: Calling All Professors
First, thanks for taking my question. I have to admit I was surprised by the answer. I suspected the answer would be some time in the 1800's. But, the cases mentioned occurred much later than that. So, we haven't been quite at this for half of the USA's life yet. Well, that gives me hope.
Second, I researched the cases Richard mentioned in regards to my question. What strikes me is how "unassuming" the cases and their holdings are. They don't seem like big deals. Yes, they're unconstitutional. But, in reading them you don't get the idea they could lead to the mess we have now. However, I believe Richard is right, so I believe they did.
And then I thought of The Road to Serfdom. "That the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected." Those cases and the 1930's were our first step on The Road. And it didn't seem like a big deal at the time to hardly anyone.
Aug '10
Re: Calling All Professors
With regard to the no-knock raids, my follow up question would have been to have them talk about whether law enforcement has immunity when they serve no-knock raids on the wrong address. There have been a handful of instances where this happened and some cases ended up very badly. Law enforcement claim they can't be held responsible when they made the error (even if unintentional). The question was discussed more in terms of whether it is permissible when it is done correctly.
Nov '11
Re: Calling All Professors
That was an awesome question.
Jun '10
Re: Calling All Professors
John Yoo: "I want to get in touch with my inner framer..."
I got a staircase I could use some help with.
May '11
Re: Calling All Professors
"I don't know either of those cases, but I have a strong opinion on both."
That's why we love you Richard.
Dec '10
Re: Calling All Professors
I just love this Epstein and Yoo podcast! It is *always* excellent!
Nov '10
Re: Calling All Professors
Love this interesting and thoughtful podcast.
Fixing the "changes" made to the constitution by the courts is an unsolved problem. Using a constitutional amendment is usually dismissed as being both too difficult to formulate and too easy to come up with a bad result. I wonder if it might be easier politically and less risky if a constitutional amendment was constructed in terms of a Supreme Court decision. For instance, an amendment that said: "Wickard v. Filburn was a blown call". All the scholarship that has been wrapped around that decision over the years would provide some confidence in the result. The focus would be narrow in a the sense of a clear change to a particular decision affected (not to say there are subsequent decisions affected) thus perhaps making the political discussion easier. Yes, grasping at straws...