con law

It's the 4th of July which means it's my old roomie and pal Mary's Birthday. Now that's worth celebrating!!!

Today I teach Con Law 101. Okay, not really, but I wanted to deepen my understanding of the 14th Amendment which I haven't thought about in detail since law school. While the language, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," seems straight forward to me as it relates to body autonomy, the Supreme Court has battled over the concept of liberty and the right to privacy for decades. I wanted to understand why. I enter the rabbit hole to the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs and end with my unfortunate and cynical conclusion that the court interprets the laws the way it wants to. 

Admittedly, it's not an easy task wrangling the different thoughts and opinions from over the years, but truthfully I don't know why we are turning to precedent that existed when women had no official rights under the constitution. That being said, there is plenty of common law to show that abortion was not criminalized prior to the quickening stage, and that often abortion was criminalized to protect the life of the mother because abortion practices were quite dangerous. I also don't understand why the issue at hand isn't a women's right to body autonomy and to make personal and private health decisions. I can only conclude it's because if that was the "right" that was to be reviewed and balanced against a State's interest, the Court would be hard pressed to come to the same decision. There was zero consideration, review, analysis or balancing of a woman's interest in her health as it relates to the often life threatening and nearly always life changing state of being pregnant. We've officially returned to the dark ages. 

References:

Cornell Law School Civil Rights

The Dobbs Decision Has Unleashed Legal Chaos for Doctors and Patients article in the New Yorker.

Sirius Gateway Info is -> here.

We listened to these songs throughout the show to give us a chance to digest and be inspired...You can't hear them here because I don't have the rights to them, but you can still enjoy them on your own time.

Our show music is from Shana Falana!

Feel free to email me, say hello: she@iwantwhatshehas.org

Leave me a voicemail with your thoughts or a few words about who has what you want and why! (845) 481-3429

** Please: SUBSCRIBE to the pod and leave a REVIEW wherever you are listening, it helps other users FIND IT

http://iwantwhatshehas.org/podcast

ITUNES | SPOTIFY | STITCHER

ITUNES: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/i-want-what-she-has/id1451648361?mt=2

SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/show/77pmJwS2q9vTywz7Uhiyff?si=G2eYCjLjT3KltgdfA6XXCA

STITCHER: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/she-wants/i-want-what-she-has?refid=stpr’

Follow:

INSTAGRAM * https://www.instagram.com/iwantwhatshehaspodcast/

FACEBOOK * https://www.facebook.com/iwantwhatshehaspodcast

TWITTER * https://twitter.com/wantwhatshehas

A quick and dirty guide to understanding standing doctrine, its relationship to the other justiciability doctrines, and the substantive consequences of this procedural constraint of jurisdiction (with particular emphasis on Lyons v. City of Los Angeles).

In this episode…

Professor Allen Rostron, the Associate Dean of Students, William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law at the University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law, explains the First Amendment as it relates to freedom of speech and provides an outstanding analytical framework for those challenged with answering a free speech question on an exam or the bar.

Some key takeaways are... 

1. Speech is both verbal and non-verbal communication and includes images,  instrumental musical communication or even tattoos. 
2. The Government can regulate speech in certain instances.
3. The government may always regulate obscenity. 
4. In order to understand whether the government can regulate non-verbal speech one must look at intent and understanding.
5. The government can regulate Commercial speech, student speech and spending limits in limited instances.

About our guest…

Professor Allen Rostron teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, tort law, products liability, and conflict of laws.

Before becoming a teacher, Rostron worked in Washington, D.C. as a Senior Staff Attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, where he was part of a nationwide litigation effort that included lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers by several dozen major cities and counties. Rostron began his career working as a law clerk for Judge Thomas S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and then as a litigation associate at the Cravath Swaine & Moore law firm in New York City.

Professor Rostron’s research and writing has had a significant impact on several areas of law. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin relied on one of his articles in a decision in which it became the first court in the nation to impose proportional or “market share” liability on manufacturers of lead paint. In another article, Professor Rostron suggested a new approach to regulation of high-powered sniper rifles, and that approach was subsequently enacted into law in the District of Columbia and incorporated into proposed federal legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate.

-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com.
-
This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100.

Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

In this episode...
Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School discusses his newest book, Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution. 

In his book, Professor Furman discusses the challenges Supreme Court Justices face when interpreting our "ancient' Constitution in modern times. 

In this discussion, Professor Lessig explains what he means by fidelity to the role of judicial decision making and explains that Supreme Court justices, regardless on either side of the political spectrum share the same constraints. The Court, he suggests, has an obligation to defend its institution and to make sure the institution can survive and develop its authority to do its job. 

As our discussion makes clear, in Fidelity and Constraint,  Professor Lessig mines past judicial decisions to explain present-day judicial rule-making making for a compelling and understandable read.

About our guest…
Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School.

Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago.

He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig serves on the Board of the AXA Research Fund, and on the advisory boards of Creative Commons and the Sunlight Foundation.

He is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association, and has received numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Award, Fastcase 50 Award and being named one of Scientific American’s Top 50 Visionaries.

Lessig holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale.

To Learn more about our Professor Lessig visit: http://www.lessig.org/about/

You can purchase Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution by clicking on the link: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/fidelity-and-constraint-9780190945664?cc=us&lang=en&
-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com.
-
This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100.

Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

In this episode…
Dean Emily Gold Waldman of the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University explains how to deal with a statute that is facially neutral but has a disparate impact with respect to a class that has a heightened review. 

Some key takeaways... 

1. Impact + Intent triggers the need for heightened review
2. A law that is facially neutral but has a disparate impact and discriminatory intent as to sex triggers intermediate scrutiny
3. A law that is facially neutral but has disparate impact and discriminatory intent as to race triggers strict scrutiny
4. Discriminatory intent means that the government wanted the law to have that disparate impact, not just that the government was aware of the impact

About our guest...
Professor Emily Gold Waldman joined the Pace faculty in 2006, after clerking for the Honorable Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At Pace, she teaches Constitutional Law, Law & Education, Employment Law Survey, and Civil Procedure. She has also served for many years as the Faculty Director of the law school's Federal Judicial Honors Program, which places students in externships with federal judges in the Second Circuit, Third Circuit, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, and District of Connecticut.  From 2003-05, she practiced in the litigation department of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; prior to that, she clerked for the Honorable William G. Young, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. She served as the chair of the AALS Section on Education Law during the 2011-12 school year, is a member of the Executive Committee of the AALS Section on Employment Discrimination, and is also a member of the Second Circuit's Judicial Council Committee on Civic Education & Public Engagement. Professor Waldman received the law school's Ottinger Award for Faculty Achievement in 2015 and 2018, the Professor of the Year Award from the Black Law Students Association in 2013, and the Goettel Prize for Faculty Scholarship in 2008. She currently serves as the Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Operations.  She also appears on the Richard French Live show as a commentator about the Supreme Court
-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com.
-
This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100.

Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

In this episode…
Dean Emily Gold Waldman of Pace Law School explains how to analyze a con law question concerning the Equal Protection Clause and Suspect Classes. 

Some key takeaways...

1. Race-based governmental classifications trigger strict scrutiny
2. Sex-based governmental classifications trigger intermediate scrutiny
3. Most other governmental classifications trigger rational basis review

About our guest...
Dean Emily Gold Waldman joined the Pace faculty in 2006, after clerking for the Honorable Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At Pace, she teaches Constitutional Law, Law & Education, Employment Law Survey, and Civil Procedure. She has also served for many years as the Faculty Director of the law school's Federal Judicial Honors Program, which places students in externships with federal judges in the Second Circuit, Third Circuit, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, and District of Connecticut.  From 2003-05, she practiced in the litigation department of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; prior to that, she clerked for the Honorable William G. Young, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. She served as the chair of the AALS Section on Education Law during the 2011-12 school year, is a member of the Executive Committee of the AALS Section on Employment Discrimination, and is also a member of the Second Circuit's Judicial Council Committee on Civic Education & Public Engagement. Professor Waldman received the law school's Ottinger Award for Faculty Achievement in 2015 and 2018, the Professor of the Year Award from the Black Law Students Association in 2013, and the Goettel Prize for Faculty Scholarship in 2008. She currently serves as the Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Operations.  She also appears on the Richard French Live show as a commentator about the Supreme Court
-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com.
-
This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100.

Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks