On April 22, University of California Berkeley law professor Sujit Choudhry filed an 11-page single-spaced grievance with the 10-member UC Berkeley Privilege and Tenure Committee.
Donald Trump’s imminent victory in the Republican primary and Bernie Sanders’ staying power in the Democratic race testify to widespread public revulsion with business-as-usual in our nation’s capital.
The three-ring circus that is the 2016 presidential campaign features spellbinding performances worthy of the big top’s clowns, hucksters, and high-wire acts. A neglected cost of the Trump-Clinton-Sanders show, however, is the diversion of attention from the Obama administration’s cutting-edge assault on limited, constitutional government.
Regulations often evolve along with technology. When cars first were introduced in certain cities in the early 1900′s, policemen walked in front of them to ensure they didn’t injure anyone or anything. It soon became obvious that that precaution was both unnecessary and unworkable.
Bernie Sanders’ failed Democratic Party insurgency and Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party reflect a dangerous fissure that has opened between the people and the establishment.
On July 5, FBI Director James Comey delivered a prepared statement summarizing the bureau’s yearlong investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her tenure as secretary of state.
On Sept. 15, University of California, Berkeley law professor and former dean of the law school Sujit Choudhry filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Regents of the University of California violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.
In back rooms and think tanks, Republicans are already mourning their party—and plotting the fight over who’s going to be in it after Trump.
The Daily Caller reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has reinstated Lewis (Scooter) Libby’s license to practice law, eight years after he was disbarred as a result of his conviction in connection with what became known as “Plamegate.”
To the chagrin of the vast majority of professors of constitutional law, President-elect Donald Trump has promised to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and throughout the federal judiciary who believe that the Constitution’s original meaning provides authoritative guidance in resolving cases and controversies.
The idea of a “constitutional conservatism” is back in the news. It came into vogue on the right in response to the pursuit by President Obama—after his victory in the 2008 presidential election and the Democrats’ sweep of both houses of Congress—of ambitious progressive policies.
In his farewell address last week, President Obama contended that his administration had accomplished more than one could have reasonably expected. But Donald Trump’s election threatens the legacy of the president who aspired to be transformative in the manner of Ronald Reagan.
By his flamboyance, crudity, and eclectic priorities as well as by his explicit statements, President Donald Trump has made it clear that the Republican Party is not identical to conservatism. That has always been true of the modern GOP dominated by Ronald Reagan’s long shadow. But the 2016 divergence was of unprecedented proportions.
Much as administrators and faculty may dislike it, the fact is that public colleges are subject to both the First Amendment and the state legislatures that fund them. Legislators shouldn’t micromanage the campuses, but they must set some basic rules.
President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order prohibiting nationals from seven countries roiled by jihadism from entering the United States for three months—and the administration’s bungled roll-out of the order—reminded foreign policy elites in both parties why they feared and loathed Trump. As if they needed a reminder.
In an October 26, 2016, letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor David M. Post, chair of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct, defended the Ivy League institution’s “procedures for addressing sexual misconduct.” But his formulation betrayed him.
Moderation—the tendency to avoid the extremes and strike sensible balances—does not appear to be President Trump’s strong suit. That so much of the opposition to him is bereft of this much-disparaged but essential virtue poses an even more alarming threat to the long-term public interest.
The controversy over the future of health care in the United States is momentous. But the narrowness of the debate—which swirls around coverage, costs, and who pays—obscures other grave threats to the American health-care system.
On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent. It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.
The allegation that Donald Trump’s presidency reflects the rise—or resurgence—of fascism in America has little basis in fact. But it is a sure way to amplify the scorn for Republicans gripping many on the left and the resentment of media and academic elites roiling many on the right. Such talk magnifies polarization and further debases American political discourse.