Ask The Professors

August means audience Q&A in the faculty lounge. Sure, professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are dealing with Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and the Mueller investigation, but they’re also taking on the important issues: why isn’t occupational licensing covered by the Full Faith & Credit Clause? Is the Federal Reserve constitutional? Which Supreme Court justice is the best candidate for time travel? What’s wrong with Richard’s free throw shot? And finally, in a Law Talk watershed, both members of our dynamic duo come up short on a piece of Supreme Court trivia. There goes our accreditation!

Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!


Lending Club


Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHillJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    What’s not widely known is where they learned the basics of the game…

    • #1
    • August 28, 2018, at 8:44 AM PDT
  2. Hoyacon Member

    Prof. Epstein’s point about the significance of not dropping the “s” from “cruel and unusual punishments” was classic Epstein. Needless to say it went soaring right over my head, necessitating a relisten in short order.

    • #2
    • August 28, 2018, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Texmoor Coolidge

    I would love to see if Troy could make VDH laugh on his other podcast like he does with John and Richard on Law Talk.

    • #3
    • August 28, 2018, at 2:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Petty Boozswha Inactive

    Please don’t discard the unused questions – if they were good please devote another show to them.

    • #4
    • August 29, 2018, at 1:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. WalterSobchakEsq Thatcher

    On the subject of the power to declare legal tender. The only place in the Constitution it is mentioned is Art I §10: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” Congress is not so restricted. And it is granted the power under Art I §8 “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, … To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States”

    If our basic canon of constitutional interpretation is that Congress has only those powers that are expressly delegated to it, then Congress does not have the power to issue paper money and declare it to be legal tender.

    OTOH, I think that banks have proven to be absolutely necessary instruments of state power since the Dutch founded the Bank of Amsterdam in 1609. Hamilton created the first Bank of the United States in 1791. Madison let its charter lapse in 1811, and discovered that he had made a horrible mistake during the War of 1812, and chartered a new Bank. The Democrats had not learned their lesson and let that one go to. When the Civil War began, the Republicans created the National Bank System to finance that war. The Federal Reserve System was fortuneteller in place when the World Wars of the 20th Century began. I would not therefor question its basic legality.




    • #5
    • September 4, 2018, at 10:01 PM PDT
    • 1 like