DOCSLIB.ORG

1 STEVEN G. CALABRESI Work Addresses: Northwestern University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

STEVEN G. CALABRESI Work Addresses: Northwestern University Yale Law School Pritzker School of Law 127 Wall Street 357 E. Chicago Avenue New Haven, CT 06521 Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503-7012 EDUCATION: Yale Law School, J.D. 1983 Note & Topics Editor, Yale Law Journal. Yale College, B.A., History, cum laude 1980 EMPLOYMENT: 2013 - present Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor Northwestern Pritzker School of Law 1996 - 2013 Professor of Law, Northwestern University 2013-2020 Visiting Professor of Law, Yale University 2010-2015 Visiting Professor of Political Science, Brown University 2012 Joseph R. Weisberger Visiting Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law 2003-05 Resident Scholar, Harvard Law School. 1993 - 1996 Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. 1990 - 1993 Assistant Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. 1 1988 - 1990 Research Associate to Judge Robert H. Bork, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Assisted in research and preparation of Robert H. Bork's best-selling book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. 1987 - 1988 Law Clerk to the Honorable Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 1987 Special Assistant to T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., the Assistant to President Reagan for Domestic Affairs, Second Floor, West Wing, The White House, Washington, D.C. Worked on the full range of domestic policy issues. 1985 - 1987 Special Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Worked on judicial selection and constitutional law issues. 1984 - 1985 Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert H. Bork, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, D.C. 1983 - 1984 Law Clerk to the Honorable Ralph K. Winter, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New Haven, Ct. Summer 1982 Summer Associate, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York, NY. Summer 1981 Summer Associate, Pierson, Semmes, Crolius & Finley, Washington, D.C. 1979 - 1980 Legislative Correspondent to Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI), United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Summer 1978 Summer Intern to Governor Joseph Garrahy (D- RI), Providence, RI. 2 Summer 1977 Research Assistant to Professor Israel Diamond, Brown University Medical School, Providence, RI. PUBLICATIONS: Books Steven Gow Calabresi, The History and Growth of Judicial Review: Volume I, The G-20 Common Law Countries and Israel (Oxford University Press 2021) Steven Gow Calabresi, The History and Growth of Judicial Review:, Volume II, The G-20 Civil Law Countries (Oxford University Press 2021) The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush (with Christopher S. Yoo) (Yale University Press 2008). The Constitution of the United States: Creation, Reconstruction, the Progressive, and the Modern Era (May 2020 Foundation Press Casebook on U.S. Constitutional Law) (with Gary Lawson). The Constitution of the United States, Third Edition (Foundation Press 2017) (with Michael Stokes Paulsen, Michael W. McConnell, Samuel L. Bray, and William Baude (2017) The U.S. Supreme Court and Comparative Constitutional Law (with Bradley Silverman & Joshua Braver) (2016 Foundation Press). The Constitution of the United States, Second Edition (Foundation Press 2013) (with Micahel Stokes Paulsen, Michael W. McConnell, and Samuel L. Bray) The Constitutional of the United States, First Edition (Foundation Press 2010) (with Michael Stokes Paulsen, Michael W. McConnell, and Samuel L. Bray) Originalism: A Quarter Century of Debate. (Regnery Press 2007) (Edited book with my lengthy introduction.) Pending Book Projects The Need to Pay Reparations for Black and Aboriginal Americans: The Case in Favor (forthcoming) 3 The Unitary Executive in America: 1607- 1789 (forthcoming with Judge Kenton J. Skarin) With Edwin Meese III: The Man Who Changed the Constitution (forthcoming with Justin Braga). Born Free and Equal: The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment (forthcoming). Law Review Book Chapters, and a Medical Journal Publication Italian Constitutionalism and Its Origins, 6 Italian Law Journal 23 (2020) (with Matteo Godi) Originalism, Time, and the Law (book chapter in Time, Law, and Change: An Interdisciplinary Study (Sofia Ranchordas & Yaniv Rosnai, eds. 2020) Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment Was Unlawful? 95 Notre Dame University Law Review 87 (2019). Originalism and James Bradley Thayer, 113 Northwestern University Law Review 1419 (2019) Comparison of the Founding and the Basic Structures of the Indian Constitution and of the United States, 2 Ind. J. of Const. Admin. L. 83-106(2018). The Origins and Growth of Judicial Enforcement in Comparative Judicial Review 83 (Erin F. Delaney & Rosalind Dixon, eds. 2018) Individual Rights under State Constitutions in 2018: What Rights are Deeply Rooted in a Modern Day Consensus of the States?; 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 49-153 ((2018) (with James Lindgren; Hannah M. Begley; Katherine L. Dore; and Sarah E. Agudo) The Depravity of the1930’s and the Modern Administrative State, 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 821-866 (2018) (with Gary Lawson) The Abraham Lincoln Lecture on Constitutional Law, 112 Nw. U. L. Rev. 61-62 (2017) An Originalist Defense of Plyler v. Doe 2017 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 225-329 (with Lena M. Barsky) On Originalism and Liberty, Annual Simon Lecture at the Cato Institute 2015-2016 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 17 (2015-2016) 4 Originalism and Same Sex Marriage, 70 University of Miami Law Review 648-707 (2016) (with Hannah M. Begley) The Gay Marriage Cases and Federal Jurisdiction, 70 University of Miami Law Review 708-756 (2016) (with Genna L. Sinel) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Chief Justice Roberts’ Dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, 8 Elon Law Review 1 (2016) (with Hannah M. Begley) Friedrich A. Hayek, the U.S. Constitution, and Institutional Design, 48 Arizona State Law Journal 231 (2016) The Unknown Achievements of Antonin Scalia, 39 Harv. J. L. & P 575 (2016) Does Institutional Design Make a Difference? 109 Northwestern University Law Review 577 (2015) The U.S. and the State Constitutions: An Unnoticed Dialogue, 9 New York University Journal of Law & Liberty 685 (2015) (with Sarah E. Agudo; and Katherine L. Dore) Hayek and the Citation of Foreign Law: A Response to Professor Jeremy Waldron, 2015 Michigan State Law Review 1 (with Bradley Silverman) The Jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Response to Professor Bruce Allen Murphy and Professor Dustin Driver, 9 New York Journal of Law and Liberty 793 (2015) (with Justin Braga) On Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Original Understanding of the Lockean Natural Rights Guarantees, 93 Texas Law Review 1299 (2015) (with Sofia M. Vickery) Judge Robert H. Bork and Professor Bruce Ackerman: An Essay on the Tempting of America 13 Ave Maria Law Review 47 (2015) (with Justin Braga) Originalism and Brown v. Board of Education, 2014 Michigan State Law Review 429 (with Michael Perl) On Liberty, Equality, and the Constitution: A Review of Richard A. Epstein’s The Classical Liberal Constitution, 8 New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 839-960 (2014). Federalism and Subsidiarity: Perspectives from Law, 1;-/23-189 in Nomos LV Federalism and Subsidiarity (James E. Fleming & Jacob T. Levy eds. 2014) (with Lucy D. Bickford). The Rule of Law as a Law of Law, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 483 (2014) (with Gary Lawson) 5 Judge Robert H. Bork and Constitutional Change: An Essay on Ollman v. Evans and Novak, 80 U. Chi. L. Rev. Dialogue 155 (2013) (with Lauren Pope) Freedom of Expression and the Golden Mean, 79 Brooklyn Law Review 1005 (2014) symposium on Corey Brettschneider’s “When the State Speaks, What Should it Say?” Religion and the Equal Protection Clause: Why the Constitution Requires School Vouchers, 65 Florida Law Review 909-1087 (2013) (with Abe Salander) The Right to Buy Health Insurance Across State Lines: Crony Capitalism and the Supreme Court, 81 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1447-1514 (2013) (The 2012 William Howard Taft Memorial Lecture) Judge Robert H. Bork and Constitutional Change: An Essay on Ollman v. Evans and Novak, 80 The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue 155 (2013) (with Lauren Pope) Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism, 36 Harvard J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 983-1097 (2013) (with Larissa C. Leibowitz) In Memoriam Robert H. Bork, 36 Harvard J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 1235-1243 (2013) An Examination of Substantive Due Process and Judicial Activism, 17 Texas Rev. of L. & Politics 316-350 (2013) (printed transcript of Federalist Society Panel Discussion) Individual Rights Under State Bills of Rights in 1787 & 1791: What Rights are Really Deeply Rooted in American History and Tradition, 85 Southern California Law Review 1451-1550 (2012) (with Sarah Agudo & Kat Leahy). Originalism and Loving v. Virginia, 2012 Brigham Young University Law Review 1393-1476 (with Andrea Matthews). The Constitution and Disdain, 126 Harv. L. Rev. Forum 13-20 (2012). The Rise and Fall of the Separation of Powers, 106 Northwestern University Law Review 527-549 (2012) (with Mark Berghausen and Skylar Albertson) Tribute to Justice John Paul Stevens, 106 Northwestern University Law Review 413- 416 (2012) Originalism and Sex Discrimination, 90 Texas Law Review 1 (2011) (with Julia Rickert) The Number of States and the Economics of American Federalism 63 Florida L. Rev. 1 to 45 (2011) (with Nicholas Terrell) 6 Is the Separation of Powers Exportable?, 33 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 5 to 16 (2010)
Recommended publications
  • Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts

    Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts

    Michigan Law Review Volume 112 Issue 6 2014 Some Kind of Judge: Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts Aaron P. Brecher U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Aaron P. Brecher, Some Kind of Judge: Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts, 112 MICH. L. REV. 1179 (2014). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol112/iss6/16 This Book Notice is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK NOTICE Some Kind of Judge: Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts Aaron P. Brecher* Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of His Era. By David M. Dorsen. Fore- word by Richard A. Posner. Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2012. Pp. xiii, 498. $35. Introduction Uberfans¨ of the federal judiciary owe a lot to David Dorsen.1 His illumi- nating biography of Judge Henry Friendly is a fitting tribute to the contribu- tions of a jurist that many consider to be among the finest judges never to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judicial biography is a difficult genre to do well,2 and most authors choose to focus on Supreme Court justices.3 But Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of His Era is an excellent source of informa- tion on Friendly’s life and, far more important, his views on the law and his relationships with some of the most fascinating figures in twentieth-century legal history.
  • An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich

    An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich

    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1995 An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich Bruce Ackerman Akhil Amar Jack Balkin Susan Low Bloch Philip Chase Bobbitt Columbia Law School, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Bruce Ackerman, Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, Susan L. Bloch, Philip C. Bobbitt, Richard Fallon, Paul Kahn, Philip Kurland, Douglas Laycock, Sanford Levinson, Frank Michelman, Michael Perry, Robert Post, Jed Rubenfeld, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein & Harry Wellington, An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich, 104 YALE L. J. 1539 (1995). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2193 This Response/Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Bruce Ackerman, Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, Susan Low Bloch, Philip Chase Bobbitt, Richard Fallon, Paul Kahn, Philip Kurland, Douglas Laycock, Sanford Levinson, Frank Michelman, Michael Perry, Robert Post, Jed Rubenfeld, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein, and Harry Wellington This response/comment is available at Scholarship Archive: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/ faculty_scholarship/2193 Comment An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich* We urge you to reconsider your proposal to amend the House Rules to require a three-fifths vote for enactment of laws that increase income taxes.' This proposal violates the explicit intentions of the Framers.
  • They Hate US for Our War Crimes: an Argument for US Ratification of the Rome Statute in Light of the Post-Human Rights

    They Hate US for Our War Crimes: an Argument for US Ratification of the Rome Statute in Light of the Post-Human Rights

    UIC Law Review Volume 52 Issue 4 Article 4 2019 They Hate U.S. for Our War Crimes: An Argument for U.S. Ratification of the Rome Statute in Light of the ost-HumanP Rights Era, 53 UIC J. MARSHALL. L. REV. 1011 (2019) Michael Drake Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Michael Drake, They Hate U.S. for Our War Crimes: An Argument for U.S. Ratification of the Rome Statute in Light of the Post-Human Rights Era, 53 UIC J. MARSHALL. L. REV. 1011 (2019) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss4/4 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THEY HATE U.S. FOR OUR WAR CRIMES: AN ARGUMENT FOR U.S. RATIFICATION OF THE ROME STATUTE IN LIGHT OF THE POST-HUMAN RIGHTS ERA MICHAEL DRAKE* I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1012 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................ 1014 A. Continental Disparities ......................................... 1014 1. The International Process in Africa ............... 1014 2. The National Process in the United States of America ............................................................ 1016 B. The Rome Statute, the ICC, and the United States ................................................................................. 1020 1. An International Court to Hold National Leaders Accountable ...................................................... 1020 2. The Aims and Objectives of the Rome Statute .......................................................................... 1021 3. African Bias and U.S.
  • Download Transcript

    Download Transcript

    Gaslit Nation Transcript 17 February 2021 Where Is Christopher Wray? https://www.patreon.com/posts/wheres-wray-47654464 Senator Ted Cruz: Donald seems to think he's Michael Corleone. That if any voter, if any delegate, doesn't support Donald Trump, then he's just going to bully him and threaten him. I don't know if the next thing we're going to see is voters or delegates waking up with horse's heads in their bed, but that doesn't belong in the electoral process. And I think Donald needs to renounce this incitement of violence. He needs to stop asking his supporters at rallies to punch protestors in the face, and he needs to fire the people responsible. Senator Ted Cruz: He needs to denounce Manafort and Roger Stone and his campaign team that is encouraging violence, and he needs to stop doing it himself. When Donald Trump himself stands up and says, "If I'm not the nominee, there will be rioting in the streets.", well, you know what? Sol Wolinsky was laughing in his grave watching Donald Trump incite violence that has no business in our democracy. Sarah Kendzior: I'm Sarah Kendzior, the author of the bestselling books The View from Flyover Country and Hiding in Plain Sight. Andrea Chalupa: I'm Andrea Chalupa, a journalist and filmmaker and the writer and producer of the journalistic thriller Mr. Jones. Sarah Kendzior: And this is Gaslit Nation, a podcast covering corruption in the United States and rising autocracy around the world, and our opening clip was of Senator Ted Cruz denouncing Donald Trump's violence in an April 2016 interview.
  • Who Are “The People”? Introduction

    Who Are “The People”? Introduction

    WHO ARE “THE PEOPLE”? ROMAN J. HOYOS* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 26 I. THE PEOPLE AND THE POPULAR TURN ................................................ 31 A. Who are the People?: The Other Question .............................. 31 B. Ackerman and the Procedural People ..................................... 34 C. Amar and the Textual People ................................................... 41 D. Kramer and the Interpreting People ....................................... 45 E. The Popular Turn’s People ...................................................... 53 II. CARL SCHMITT’S PEOPLE ................................................................... 54 A. The Three Moments of Democracy ......................................... 55 B. Sovereignty and the Exception ................................................ 57 C. Dictatorship ............................................................................ 60 D. Acclamation ............................................................................. 67 E. Schmitt’s People ....................................................................... 73 III. SCHMITT AND THE POPULAR TURN ................................................... 74 A. Amar and the Constituent Power ............................................. 75 B. Ackerman and the Exception .................................................... 78 C. The Popular Turn and Acclamation ....................................... 82 D. Schmitt, the Popular Turn, and the
  • The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society

    The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society

    The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society THE LAWS 0) Definitions 1) The Laws and Rules The Structure of The Cambridge Union 2) Membership 3) The Standing Committee 4) Officers 5) The Responsibilities of the Officers 6) The Review Committee Elections and Appointments 7) Elections Procedure 8) Charitable Points for Elections 9) Electoral Rules 10) Electoral Investigations 11) Appointments Procedure Codes and Policies 12) Code of Conduct 13) Code of Conduct Investigation 14) Principles of the Union 15) Restrictions on Invitations 16) Expenses Policy 17) Procedure for Main Debates 18) Policy on Reciprocal Membership Page 1 of 67 THE RULES Events Policies 1) Duty Officer 2) House Rules 3) Guest Policy Competitive Debating 4) Debating Team Selection and Reimbursement 5) Management of Debating Budget 6) Convenors 7) Convenors Positions and Responsibilities Organisational Committees 8) Full Committee 9) Full Committee Departments and Responsibilities 10) Sub-Committees 11) Budget Committee 12) Competitive Debating Committee 13) Vacation Committee 14) Executive Committee Miscellaneous 15) Handover 16) Social Events Planning Procedure Page 2 of 67 Definitions THE LAWS Definitions In these Laws and Rules the following expressions have the following means unless inconsistent with the context: 1) Accounts Manager means the individual hired by the Society to run its accounts. 2) Appeals Panel means the panel appointed in accordance with Law 13 which handles disciplinary appeals. 3) Appellant means a member of the Society who is seeking an appeal to a disciplinary decision. 4) Appointee means a member of the Society appointed to a formal position. 5) Board of Trustee-Directors means the group of individual trustee directors who have ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of the charity from time to time in accordance with the Charities Act 2011.
  • White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings

    White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings

    WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997 Serial No. 105–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45–405 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Jan 31 2003 08:13 May 28, 2003 Jkt 085679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\45405 45405 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E.
  • AMAR: Third Thoughts on Kavanaugh Akhil Amar

    AMAR: Third Thoughts on Kavanaugh Akhil Amar

    AMAR: Third thoughts on Kavanaugh Akhil Amar In a Yale Daily News op-ed published on Sept. 24, I offered “Second Thoughts” on the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’87 LAW ’90 and mapped a procedural path forward through the dense thicket of accusations and denials. I proposed: (1) a speedy public hearing followed by (2) additional investigation, with (3) a firm end date to the investigation — I floated Oct. 5 — and (4) scope restrictions on the investigation to prevent “still more extensions [and] ever wider investigations.” On Sept. 24, no one else — so far as I know — was publicly proposing this precise procedural framework, but, as events actually unfolded in the following weeks, something remarkably similar to my proposed framework was in fact cobbled together and implemented, though critics have argued that the scope of the FBI’s post-hearing investigation was unduly narrow. Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Oct. 6 raises countless questions — the episode will spawn shelves of future books and articles. Today, I will address just one narrow issue of special local significance: Yale’s, and my own, complicated relationship to power. Yale prides itself on its tradition of preparing future leaders. In his Yale College opening address on Aug. 25 — well before the Kavanaugh nomination boiled over and roiled the campus — President Peter Salovey proclaimed that “Our alumni are perhaps the greatest illustration of Yale’s tradition of service. Five Yale graduates have served as U.S. presidents, four as secretaries of state and eighteen as justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, representing viewpoints across the political spectrum.
  • RLB Letterhead

    RLB Letterhead

    6-25-14 White Paper in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request re the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents. This is a White Paper (WP) in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request. The plaintiff sought the release of the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents by application of President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information, 75 F.R. 707 (January 5, 2010), § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR). On June 2, 2014, President Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams rendered a Case #M-425 denial decision with an attached Worksheet: This is in further response to your request for your Mandatory Review request for release of information under the provisions of Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, to Reagan Presidential records pertaining to Ross Perot doc re report see email. These records were processed in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207. Id. Emphasis added. The Worksheet attachment to the decision lists three sets of Keisler, Peter: Files with Doc ## 27191, 27192, and 27193 notations.
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARA LESLIE ALEXANDER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 96-2123 ) 97-1288 ) (RCL) FEDERAL BUREAU OF ) INVESTIGATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion [827] to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to the Executive Office of the President Pursuant to Court Order of April 13, 1998. Upon consideration of this motion, and the opposition and reply thereto, the court will GRANT the plaintiffs’ motion. I. Background The underlying allegations in this case arise from what has become popularly known as “Filegate.” Plaintiffs allege that their privacy interests were violated when the FBI improperly handed over to the White House hundreds of FBI files of former political appointees and government employees from the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This particular dispute revolves around interrogatories pertaining to Mike McCurry, Ann Lewis, Rahm Emanuel, Sidney Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey. Plaintiffs served these interrogatories pertaining to these five current or former officials on May 13, 1999. The EOP responded on July 16, 1999. Plaintiffs now seek to compel further answers to the following lines of questioning: 1. Any and all knowledge these officials have, including any meetings held or other communications made, about the obtaining of the FBI files of former White House Travel Office employees Billy Ray Dale, John Dreylinger, Barney Brasseux, Ralph Maughan, Robert Van Eimerren, and John McSweeney (Interrogatories 11, 35, 40 and 47). 2. Any and all knowledge these officials have, including any meetings held or other communications made, about the release or use of any documents between Kathleen Willey and President Clinton or his aides, or documents relating to telephone calls or visits 2 between Willey and the President or his aides (Interrogatories 15, 37, and 42).
  • The Keep Eastern Illinois University

    The Keep Eastern Illinois University

    Eastern Illinois University The Keep 1996 Press Releases 4-4-1996 04/04/1996 - Zeifman To Offer New Theories About Watergate Scandal.pdf University Marketing and Communications Follow this and additional works at: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/press_releases_1996 Recommended Citation University Marketing and Communications, "04/04/1996 - Zeifman To Offer New Theories About Watergate Scandal.pdf" (1996). 1996. 93. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/press_releases_1996/93 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Press Releases at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 96-100 April 4, 1996 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ZEIFMAN TO OFFER NEW THEORIES ABOUT WATERGATE SCANDAL CHARLESTON -- Theories and observations about what really took place in Washington during the Richard Nixon impeachment proceedings will be the topic of a public presentation by former House Judiciary Committee chief counsel Jerry Zeifman at 3 p.m. Monday in Eastern Illinois University's Coleman Hall Auditorium. During his talk, Zeifman will share information from his recently published book, "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot," which gives a personal account of the judiciary process using first-hand material from November 1973 through August 1974 to show how the historic impeachment inquiry was tainted. Zeifman's book is based primarily on an 800-page diary he kept at the time, describing the actions, ethical and otherwise, of key impeachment figures such as Nixon; John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry and formerly a key figure in Robert Kennedy's Justice Department; and Doar aide Hillary Rod ham (now the First Lady) and her fellow staffer Bernard Nussbaum, who recently resigned as President Clinton's -more- ADD 1/1/1/1 ZEIFMAN chief White House counsel.
  • Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power

    Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power William Baude Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William Baude, "Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power," 122 Yale Law Journal 1738 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1738.BAUDE.1825_UPDATED.DOC 5/18/2013 4:48:48 PM William Baude Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power abstract. It is black-letter law that the federal government has the power to take land through eminent domain. This modern understanding, however, is a complete departure from the Constitution’s historical meaning. From the Founding until the Civil War, the federal government was thought to have an eminent domain power only within the District of Columbia and the territories—but not within states. Politicians and judges (including in two Supreme Court decisions) repeatedly denied the existence of such a power, and when the federal government did need to take land, it relied on state cooperation to do so. People during this period refused to infer a federal eminent domain power from Congress’s enumerated powers or the Necessary and Proper Clause because they viewed it as a “great power”—one that was too important to be left to implication. And they refused to infer it from the Takings Clause either, because the Clause was not intended to expand Congress's power beyond the District and territories.