Faculty Bibliography
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
If Trump or any of the likely Republican nominees win in 2024, they will immediately move to protect those who attempted to overturn the 2020 election
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
We were lucky last time. A multitude of law-abiding individuals and fortunate events stopped the “quiet” phase of the coup to keep Donald Trump in power. That could well change in 2024.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
On Monday, the supreme court justice issued a worrying signal about his commitment to maintaining press freedoms.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
On the assumption that five Supreme Court Justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—are prepared to overrule Roe v. Wade and join an opinion resembling Justice Alito’s draft in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. (“the draft”), we have some questions.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
If the high court adopts Alito’s draft opinion, it will be a legal tidal wave that sweeps away a swath of rights unlike anything America has ever seen.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
If the right of a woman to decide whether to have a baby won’t qualify as a guaranteed right, then neither will most of the rights you have long assumed are yours.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
The evidence is clear: it’s time to prosecute Donald Trump Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut On the supposedly difficult question of ‘criminal intent’, prosecutors should have no trouble convincing a jury. Full speed ahead is the only proper course.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
In the lead-up to the insurrection, Madison Cawthorn participated in planning meetings and promoted the confrontation with Congress on social media. He has invoked a post-Civil War statute to render him immune from consequences imposed by North Carolina voters.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Why does Stephen Breyer continue to insist that the Supreme Court is apolitical?
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
There was no denial that Alabama’s new map blatantly discriminated against Black voters.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Nothing short of convicting Trump will disqualify him from running in 2024 — and claiming the mantle of the martyred hero while doing it.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Republicans are busy undermining the next election. But giving up on democracy isn’t an option. We must fight back, and here’s how.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
SB 8 not only stripped Texan women of their rights under Roe v Wade, it made a mockery of the US constitution and the supremacy of the federal courts.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Congress needs to act and the executive branch needs to step up.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
The Senate will retain the constitutional power — and duty — to conduct an impeachment trial of Trump even when he is no longer president.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
The House would be fully justified to use this drastic remedy.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Abuses of constitutional clemency power should be investigated and prosecuted.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
America may be back, as Joe Biden says, but at the Supreme Court, with its extremely conservative new majority, America is increasingly unrecognizable.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
The role of a reckoning is to get beyond politics.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
In the world according to Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, impeachment turns out to be a remarkably simple subject. So simple, in fact, that it’s unclear why it would merit a book, let alone a spate of studies. Here’s the scoop: A few sources from the late 1780s decisively show that “the impeachment judgment is properly concerned... solely with the question whether the wrongs committed are themselves sufficiently serious wrongs as to warrant exercise of the impeachment power.” Nothing else can ever be relevant. If a legislator concludes that the President’s wrongs are “sufficiently serious,” he or she is obliged to vote for the President’s removal from office. And in assessing seriousness, legislators can look only to neutral factors derived from “original objective public meaning.” This approach shields us from “considerations of strategy, practicality, and partisan politics.” It also reveals that the impeachment power has been drastically under-utilized in American history: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and potentially James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson (among quite a few others), should never have completed their terms in office. Only a partisan hack — with dodgy motives and even dodgier methods — could support any other view of impeachment. That’s where we come in: we’re the hacks. Professor Paulsen is explicit on this point. In his telling, we engaged in a devious “partisan gerrymander,” deliberately reverse-engineering an impeachment standard to ensnare as many Republicans as possible while letting Democrats off the hook. We were able to do so, Paulsen adds, only because we didn’t stick to originalist methods. By falsely asserting that originalism doesn’t provide a clear and determinate framework for impeachment analysis, we invented judgment calls vulnerable to partisan manipulation. And then we engaged in precisely such skullduggery, making up new standards and invoking irrelevant considerations. But, alas, we did a bad job. Having written a whole book to oust President Donald J. Trump while saving Clinton’s legacy, we stumbled at the finish line — first by offering “contradictory warnings” about the strategic risks of impeachment, and then by failing to demand Trump’s removal. Professor Paulsen blends accusations of willful bad faith with insinuations of scholarly and strategic incompetence. These aren’t minor charges. You might therefore expect that Paulsen would have engaged seriously with our arguments. If so, you’d be disappointed. As one of our colleagues candidly remarked, “It’s almost like he didn’t read the book.” In accusing us of a partisan gerrymander and methodological dishonesty, Paulsen repeatedly and egregiously mis-describes our thesis, reasoning, and conclusions. He then ignores entire sections of the book that refute core premises of his “naïve” view. Throughout, he rips text out of context to complain about contradiction. In short, he has reviewed a book that we didn’t (and wouldn’t) write. And he has accompanied that “review” with a supposedly originalist theory of impeachment that is neither originalist nor persuasive.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Breaking the law is an impeachable offense but not the only one. We need to ask if America can survive this presidency and, if we do, what kind of nation will we have become.
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
-
Type:
Categories:
Sub-Categories:
Calls to remove a president have become a regular feature of American politics over the past two decades, making it harder to achieve if truly needed.