DOCSLIB.ORG

Faculty File Intellectual Property (Anselm “The Gender/Class Divide: NEWS BRIEFS Kamperman Sanders, Ed.) Reproduction, Privilege, and the (Edward Elgar, 2014)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Faculty File Intellectual Property (Anselm “The Gender/Class Divide: NEWS BRIEFS Kamperman Sanders, Ed.) Reproduction, Privilege, and the (Edward Elgar, 2014) faculty file Intellectual Property (Anselm “The Gender/Class Divide: NEWS BRIEFS Kamperman Sanders, ed.) Reproduction, Privilege, and the (Edward Elgar, 2014). Workplace,” Florida International University Law Review (2013); Eleanor Marie Brown published “The End of Men or the Rebirth “The Blacks Who ‘Got Their of Class? How Hanna Rosin Forty Acres’: A Theory of Leaves Out the 1% & Family Law Black West Indian Migrant Fails the Other 99%,” Boston Asset Acquisition,” New University Law Review (2013); York University Law Review “Is Marriage for Rich Men?” in Publications What’s the Difference?”; “FDA (2014); “Outsourcing Criminal Nevada Law Journal (2013); to Spend $600M Fighting Deportees,” University of and “Inequality and Marriage,” Michael B. Abramowicz Smoking, but Inefficiently”; Chicago Law Review (2013); Chronicle Review (2014). She is co-editor, with F. Scott and “ACA’s 50% Smoker and “How the U.S. Selected for published, with Gerry W. Beyer, Kieff, and James E. Daily of Surcharge—Q & A.” a Black British Bourgeoisie,” “When You Pass on, Don’t Leave Perspectives on Patentable Georgetown Immigration Law the Passwords Behind: Planning Subject Matter, forthcoming Jerome A. Barron and Journal (2013). for Digital Assets,” Probate & from Cambridge University co-author C. Thomas Dienes Property (2012), and “Digital Press. He also published published the eighth edition of Karen B. Brown published Planning: The Future of Elder “Screening Legal Claims Constitutional Law in a Nutshell “Beyond Economic Efficiency” Law,” National Academy of Elder Based on Third-Party Litigation (Thomson/West Group, 2013). in United States Tax Law (with Law Attorneys Journal (2013); Finance Agreements and Other David A. Brennen and Darryll K. and, with Jennifer Collins, Signals of Quality” (with Omer Paul Schiff Berman published Jones) (Wolters Kluwer Law & “Fully Informed Consent for Alper), Vanderbilt Law Review “Global Legal Pluralism: Business, 2013). Prospective Egg Donors,” Virtual (2013). Mapping a Hybrid World” Mentor (2014). in Governance and Risk: Donna Attanasio published Challenges of Global Arturo J. Carrillo published “PURPA’s Public Power Impact Regulation (2013); “How Legal “Comparative Law Study and (and What to Do About It),” Pluralism Is and Is Not Distinct Analysis of National Legislation George Washington Journal From Liberalism: A Reply to Relating to Crimes Against of Energy and Environmental Denis Patterson and Alexis Humanity and Extraterritorial Law (2014). Galán,” International Journal of Jurisdiction” (with Annalise K. Constitutional Law (2013); “Le Neil H. Buchanan published The Nelson), George Washington Nouveau Pluralisme Juridique,” Debt Ceiling Disasters: How the International Law Review Revue Internationale Republicans Created an (2014) and “Re-Imaginando la de Droit Économique; Unnecessary Constitutional Clínica Jurídica de Derechos and “Jurisgenerative Crisis and How the Democrats Humanos” (with Nicolás Espejo Constitutionalism: Procedural Can Fight Back (Carolina Yaksic), Revista Academia de Principles for Managing Global Academic Press, 2013); an essay, la Universidad de Buenos Legal Pluralism,” Indiana “Thomas Piketty’s Book Is Aires (2014). John F. Banzhaf III’s recent Journal of Global Legal Studies Masterful and Important, but writings include “Prof. Banzhaf (2013). Ultimately a Sideshow” (with Claims FDA’s E-Cigarette Rules Michael Dorf) (online in Jotwell, Have Major Omissions—‘Candy Francesca Bignami published July 2014); and “Borrowing by Cigarettes on Steroids’ May “Rethinking the Legal Any Other Name: Why Continue to Endanger Health”; Foundations of the European Presidential ‘Spending Cuts’ “Students Accused of Rape Constitutional Order: The Would Still Exceed the Debt Can Fight Back: Court OKs Lessons of New Historical Ceiling,” Columbia Law Suits Against University, Research” in American Review (2014). W. Burlette Carter published Employees, and Female”; “Law University International Law “The Federal Law of Marriage: Schools Being Forced to Make Review (2013). Her Research Naomi R. Cahn published Deference, Deviation, and Radical Changes: More Handbook on Comparative Law Marriage Markets (with June DOMA,” American University Lawyers, But Maybe Even Less and Regulation (with David Carbone) (2014) and Finding Journal of Gender, Social Policy Justice”; “E-Cigarettes Zaring) is forthcoming in 2015. Our Families (with Wendy and the Law (2013). Increasingly Banned in Public: Kramer) (December 2013). Causing Epidemics Among Robert Brauneis published an She also published numerous Steve Charnovitz published Young Children and Teens”; essay titled “National Treatment articles, including, with June the chapter “Trade and “NFL Hypocrisy: Banning the in Copyright and Related Carbone, “Who’s the Father?” Environment” in Handbook of N-Word, but Supporting the Rights: How Much Work Does in Boston University Law Review Trade Policy for Development R-Word”; “How Fans Convince It Do?” as a chapter in The (2013); “The Past, Present (Oxford University Press, Themselves ‘Redskins’ Isn’t Principle of National Treatment and Future of the Marital 2013); “International Trade and Racist”; “Paula Deen’s N****rs in International Economic Presumption,” International Investment Law and Carbon vs. Dan Snyder’s R*****ns: Law Trade, Investment, and Survey of Family Law (2013); Management Technologies” WINTER 2015 | www.law.gwu.edu 67 FACULTY FILE (with co-authors), Natural Robert J. Cottroll published “In theory, including new chapters Materials (with Arthur R. Miller, Resources Journal (2013); and the Civic Republic: Crime, the on visual rhetoric and story- John E. Sexton, and Helen a book review of International Inner City, and the Democracy telling. A new edition of her Hershkoff) (West Group, 2013). Economic Law in the 21st Century of Arms—Being a Disquisition primary text, Legal Writing and by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, on the Revival of the Militia Analysis, will be published at the Theresa A. Gabaldon published Journal of International Economic at Large” (with Raymond T. end of 2014. Professor DeSanctis the fifth edition of Securities Law (2014). Steve Charnovitz’s Diamond), Connecticut Law is also working with her Law (with Larry D. Soderquist) paper “Green Subsidies and Review (2013). co-author on a revamped (Foundation Press, 2014); the the WTO” was published in research text and an article eighth edition of Securities September as a World Bank Charles B. Craver published about the democratization of Regulation (Foundation Policy Research Working Paper. his 15th book, The Art of legal research information. She Press, 2013); and “The Role His article titled “The Field of Negotiation in the Business published, with co-author of Competitive Disclosure International Economic Law” World (LEXIS, 2014); Skills & Jessica L. Clark, “Toward a in Preventing the Abuse of was published in the Journal Values: Alternative Dispute Unified Grading Vocabulary: Financial Consumers,” Banking of International Economic Law Resolution (LexisNexis, Using Rubrics in Legal Writing and Financial Services Policy in September. 2013); “How to Conduct Courses,” Journal of Legal Report (2013). Effective Transnational Education (2013). Bradford R. Clark published Negotiations Between Nations, Kristelia A. García, 2012–2014 “Tel-Oren, Filartiga, and the Nongovernmental Groups, and Laura A. Dickinson published Marks Fellow and visiting asso- Meaning of the Alien Tort Business Firms,” Washington “Regulating the Privatized ciate professor of law, wrote an Statute,” University of Chicago University Journal of Law & Security Industry: The Promise article titled “Penalty Default Law Review Dialogue (2013), and Policy (2013); and “Initiating of Public/Private Governance,” Licenses: A Case for Uncertainty,” “Two Myths About the Alien Tort and Conducting Meaningful Emory Law Journal (2013). that is forthcoming in New York Statute” (with A.J. Bellia), Notre Dispute Resolution Procedures,” University Law Review (2014). Dame Law Review (2014). Alternatives to the High Cost of Lisa M. Fairfax published The article is ranked as a top ten Litigation (2013). “Mandating Board–Shareholder SSRN download in the catego- Jessica L. Clark published Engagement,” University of ries of intellectual property: empirical research on law school Lawrence A. Cunningham Illinois Law Review, and “Sue copyright; microeconomics: grades—u sing data from the GW published Berkshire Beyond on Pay: Say on Pay’s Impact on production, market structure Law Class of 2011—in “Grades Buffett: The Enduring Value of Directors’ Fiduciary Duties,” and pricing; auctions, rationing, Matter: Legal Writing Grades Values (Columbia University Arizona Law Review. Her book and licensing; international intel- Matter Most,” Mississippi College Press, 2014); “Deferred chapter “The Elusive Quest lectual property protection; IO: Law Review (2014); “Peer Prosecutions and Corporate for Director Independence” and productivity, innovation, and Review: Using Time, Place, and Governance: An Integrated was published in Research technology. Professor García’s Manner Constraints to Maximize Approach to Investigation and Handbook on the Economics of article, “Private Copyright Learning,” Perspectives: Teaching Reform,” Florida Law Review Corporate Law. Reform,” was published in the Legal Research & Writing (2014); Introductory Accounting Michigan Telecommunications (2013); and “The Theoretical for Lawyers (West, 2014); Roger Anthony Fairfax and Technology Law Review and Practical Underpinnings and Corporations and Other published
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 28 | Issue 2 Article 6 1999 Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Turley, Jonathan (1999) "Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 28: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Turley: Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison REFLECTIONS ON MURDER, MISDEMEANORS, AND MADISON Jonathan Turley* I. INTRODUCTION Few crimes seem to concentrate the mind more than simple mur- der. Certainly, murder was on the minds of many of the academics testi- fying in the Clinton impeachment hearing While this offense was never seriously alleged during the scandal, it was very much a concern for academics advocating the "executive function theory. 2 Under this theory, a President could only be impeached for acts related to his of- fice, as opposed to purely personal acts.' Since the impeachment of President Clinton raised matters arguably related to his personal mis- conduct, various academics insisted that the allegations fell outside of * J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University of Law School. 1. See Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitutionof the House Comm.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogation's Law
    THEYAEAW JOUNA WILLIAM RANNEY LEVI Interrogation's Law ABSTRACT. Conventional wisdom states that recent U.S. authorization of coercive interrogation techniques, and the legal decisions that sanctioned them, constitute a dramatic break with the past. This is false. U.S. interrogation policy well prior to 9/11 has allowed a great deal more flexibility than the high-minded legal prohibitions of coercive tactics would suggest: all interrogation methods allegedly authorized since 9/11, with the possible exception of waterboarding, have been authorized before. The conventional wisdom thus elides an intrinsic characteristic of all former and current laws on interrogation: they are vague and contestable, and thus, when context so demands, manipulable. A U TH O R. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2oo; Stanford University, B.A. 2006. Three individuals were central to the development of this project. Jack L. Goldsmith offered invaluable guidance from the beginning; I could not ask for a better mentor. Owen M. Fiss graciously supported this project, providing thoughtful comments and helpful criticism. Harold H. Koh consulted and advised throughout; I am immensely grateful for his encouragement. I am thankful to Mariano-Florentino Cullar, Jeremy M. Licht, Martin S. Lederman, David F. Levi, and Benjamin Wittes. This Note was completed before the Justice Department released four additional memoranda on April 16, 2009. 1434 NOTE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1436 1. THE LAW'S LATITUDE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TO THE PRESENT 1442 A. Law and Interrogation: The Central Intelligence Agency 1443 1. The Torture Statute 1444 2. The Fifth Amendment 1448 3. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Military Commissions Act 1452 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Emergencies Act of 1976 Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives
    THE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT OF 1976 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2019 Serial No. 116–5 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37–840 WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:06 Oct 12, 2019 Jkt 037840 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\B840.XXX B840 dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with HEARING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia Wisconsin THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio KAREN BASS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JIM JORDAN, Ohio HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York KEN BUCK, Colorado DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California MATT GAETZ, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ANDY BIGGS, Arizona VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida TOM MCCLINTOCK, California J. LUIS CORREA, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania Vice-Chair BEN CLINE, Virginia SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida LUCY MCBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, ERIC SWALWELL, California Ranking Member MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania JIM JORDAN, Ohio SYLVIA R.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Statutory Interpretation
    SMU Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 9 2000 Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation, 53 SMU L. REV. 205 (2000) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol53/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS DARKLY: NATIONAL SECURITY AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Jonathan Turley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 206 II. AREA 51: A CASE STUDY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AREA ......................... 210 A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................. 210 B. RELEVANT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND JUDICIAL R ULINGS .............................................. 214 C. THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE ON THE ANALYSIS IN KASZA AND FRosT ................................................. 219 III. THE INTERPLAY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION ............................ 221 A. THEORIES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE COMPANY OF THE COMMON LAW ..................... 222 B. PREEMPTION AND JUDICIAL CHOICE: THE USE OF COMMON LAW AS AN OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE ELEMENT IN THE FROST CASE ........................ 228 C. THE ADOPTION OF AN ABSOLUTE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION .............. 231 IV. THE LEGISPRUDENCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE COMMON LAW ............................. 237 A. THE DIALOGIC EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest
    Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 2141 Rayburn House Office Building December 3, 2013 Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of the United States. The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it is often more important how you do things than what you do. We have long benefited from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved. However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest to use them.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device
    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Anonymity, Obscurity, and Technology: Reconsidering Privacy in the Age of Biometrics
    ANONYMITY, OBSCURITY, AND TECHNOLOGY: RECONSIDERING PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF BIOMETRICS JONATHAN TURLEY ABSTRACT For decades, cinematic and literary works have explored worlds without privacy: fishbowl societies with continual, omnipresent surveillance. For those worried about a post-privacy world, facial recognition technology and other biometric technology could well be the expanding portal to that dystopia. These technologies are rapidly transforming a society predicated on privacy into a diaphanous society where identity and transparency are defining elements. Biometric technology is perfectly suited to evade current privacy protections and doctrines because it presents new challenges to the existing legal framework protecting privacy. The greatest threat of this technological shift is to democratic activities—the very reason that countries such as China have invested so heavily into biometric surveillance systems. This Article explores how our traditional privacy notions fit into a new age of biometrics. It seeks to frame the debate on what values society’s notions of privacy protect, and how to protect them. After exploring prior approaches and definitions to privacy, it proposes a shift from an emphasis on anonymity to a focus on obscurity. The truth is that we now live in a “nonymous” world where our movements and associations will be made increasingly transparent. This Article concludes by recommending a comprehensive approach to biometric technology that would obscure increasingly available images and data while recasting privacy protections to fit a new and unfolding biometric reality. This obscurity will allow participation in society to continue unimpeded by the chilling effects created by the new technology. Without it, our democratic society will never be the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Turley on Trump Emolument Clause
    Jonathan Turley On Trump Emolument Clause Transferrable Stafford machinates some hugeousness and incurvate his doolies so bilingually! Inexpressive and knurliest Garcia grow her streps carpogoniums tours and chastens classically. Waine is gneissic and subsidizes collectively while tubbiest Dion overbuilding and reeving. Throughout both parties, turley on trump but we will be chaired this body would have Other hypos can be raised. Does this seems more information technology that remedy for business records obtained and consistently found, jonathan turley on trump emolument clause of jonathan turley told to! The investigations to the president trump, llp and tom paine said before the courts recognize such an impeachment inquiry, some of the. How on emoluments clause, emolument as a number of the ones. We on these funds to jonathan elliot, jonathan turley on trump emolument clause of law professor? In trump emoluments clause inspection of jonathan turley argued that the ones that it is not good of care act and his particular. Ambassador to external sites are monstrously evil cabal of jonathan turley on trump emolument clause and then went on biden always two primary allegations make scotus reject earlier following the ransom is nothing. Deposition on emoluments clause does turley about raising their liberty protected rights page features some good doctor degree to! Circuit court struck them the tire Air Interstate Rule that implemented a flutter and trade written for pollutants. Live on one! Supreme Court agreed to review cases presenting gay marriage issues. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, Ambassador Taylor asked to resemble with him privately. Dem candidate trump had with meaning and the financial services are provided sufficient reason, but it was explicit that body of state! Uk on trump executive branch from jonathan turley argued against trump extended an emolument clause would be our criminal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley
    Maryland Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 11 Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege, 60 Md. L. Rev. 205 (2001) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol60/iss1/11 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARADISE LOST: THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE EROSION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JONATHAN TuRLEY* INTRODUCTION In Paradise Lost, Milton once described a "Serbonian Bog ... [w]here Armies whole have sunk."' This illusion could have easily been taken from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton crisis. On a myriad of different fronts, the Clinton defense teams advanced sweep- ing executive privilege arguments, only to be defeated in a series of judicial opinions. This "Serbonian Bog" ultimately proved to be the greatest factor in undoing efforts to combat inquiries into the Presi- dent's conduct in the Lewinsky affair and the collateral scandals.2 More importantly, it proved to be the undoing of years of effort to protect executive privilege from risky assertions or judicial tests.' In the course of the Clinton litigation, courts imposed a series of new * J.B. & Maurice C.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP United States House of Representatives Jamie Raskin Diana DeGette David Cicilline Joaquin Castro Eric Swalwell Ted Lieu Stacey Plaskett Madeleine Dean Joe Neguse U.S. House of Representatives Managers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 5 A. President Trump Refuses to Accept the Results of the 2020 Election ................................ 5 B. President Trump Encourages His Followers to Come to Washington on January 6, 2021 and “Fight” to Overturn the Election Results ............................................................. 12 C. Vice President Pence Refuses to Overturn the Election Results ....................................... 18 D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20 E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22 F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29 G. The House Approves An Article of Impeachment with Bipartisan Support
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Jonathan Turley Is a Nationally Recognized Legal Scholar Who Has Written Extensively in Areas Ranging from Constitutional Law to Legal Theory to Tort Law
    Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools. One of this current projects if the new case book on Torts for exploring common law, constitutional, and statutory issues of civil liability. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation. In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro
    Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law The George Washington University Law School “The Impeachment Inquiry Into President Donald J. Trump: The Constitutional Basis For Presidential Impeachment” 1100 House Office Building United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary December 4, 2019 I.INTRODUCTION Chairman Nadler, ranking member Collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.1It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States. Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar. The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. It was an atmosphere that the Framers anticipated. Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”2 As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.
    [Show full text]