Go offline with the Player FM app!
Episode 155: Presidential Utterance
Archived series ("Inactive feed" status)
When? This feed was archived on February 26, 2024 23:19 (). Last successful fetch was on February 25, 2021 22:41 ()
Why? Inactive feed status. Our servers were unable to retrieve a valid podcast feed for a sustained period.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 196271622 series 1952318
How do presidents affect the law when they speak? Should courts consider what they say, defer to what they say, and find governmental intentions in what they say? What if a president says one thing, perhaps improvising during a speech, and an official communication of an agency, the Justice Department, or the White House says another? Kate Shaw joins us to talk about her theory that generally (but not always) courts should ignore presidential statements that are not consciously intended to stake out a legal position. Obviously, there's an 800-pound, tweeting gorilla in the corner of the room.
This show’s links:
- Kate Shaw's faculty profile and writing
- Kate Shaw, Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts
- Jeffrey Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency
- Peter Strauss, Overseer or "The Decider"? The President in Administrative Law
- Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration
- Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (Muslim ban 3.0)
- Kathryn Watts, Controlling Presidential Control
- Jack Goldsmith, Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?
Special Guest: Kate Shaw.
218 episodes
Archived series ("Inactive feed" status)
When? This feed was archived on February 26, 2024 23:19 (). Last successful fetch was on February 25, 2021 22:41 ()
Why? Inactive feed status. Our servers were unable to retrieve a valid podcast feed for a sustained period.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 196271622 series 1952318
How do presidents affect the law when they speak? Should courts consider what they say, defer to what they say, and find governmental intentions in what they say? What if a president says one thing, perhaps improvising during a speech, and an official communication of an agency, the Justice Department, or the White House says another? Kate Shaw joins us to talk about her theory that generally (but not always) courts should ignore presidential statements that are not consciously intended to stake out a legal position. Obviously, there's an 800-pound, tweeting gorilla in the corner of the room.
This show’s links:
- Kate Shaw's faculty profile and writing
- Kate Shaw, Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts
- Jeffrey Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency
- Peter Strauss, Overseer or "The Decider"? The President in Administrative Law
- Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration
- Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (Muslim ban 3.0)
- Kathryn Watts, Controlling Presidential Control
- Jack Goldsmith, Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?
Special Guest: Kate Shaw.
218 episodes
All episodes
×Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.