Princeton, and oxford, and harvard for law, and served in the chambers of a law clark. All of our panelists this evening, clark for one judge or another in a decent circuit. All four of us. Its a good court. He was a great court. I was in the white house counsels office, and clinton administration. And the policy council as deputy director. She couldnt keep a job apparently. University of chicago law school, and then after getting tanya there she moved on inside at harvard. Not long after that became the dean of harvard law school. And then can get that job either. And became an associate solicitor general first, and then an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Judge uncle meyer at the far and, is in the district of new york, and has been since 2011. He came in the court on 20 twin. In 2011 in the southern district. He went to harvard, and to harvard for law school as well. Clerk for judge world on the d. C. Circuit. And was in the Solicitors Office with a solicitor general. And the
Rise of Andrew Jackson and his presidency. He focuses on Andrew Jacksons clashes with wig Party Members such as henry clay and Daniel Webster in the bank wars of the 1830s. This class is about 55 minutes. Well, good morning, everybody. And welcome to American History. My name is jonathan barth. You all know me as professor barth. And i am a history professor at Arizona State university. In conjunction with two very stellar world class programs, and there they are. On the screen. The school of historical philosophical and religious studies, quite a mouthful, so we call this shippers, great program, and then also the center for political thought and leadership. Or ptl. Another stellar program. If this lecture intrigues you, you should check out our center. Were doing some big things. And finally, if you are interested in learning more about yours truly, there we are, www. Professor barth. Com, you can read about me on that web site. Well, a generation of politicians has passed. Alexander
Affirmative action under the constitution. And then the legacy of those decisions. Youre watching American History tv on cspan three. The u. S. Supreme court today ruled that the Death Penalty does not necessarily represent cruel and unusual punishment, and that i can be a deterrent to crime. By seven to two, the judges upheld the Death Penalty in florida georgia and texas, other states may be affected in this similar way. But about five to four, the court struck down Capital Punishment laws and and louisiana. That ruling could prevent still other states from invoking their own Death Penalty laws. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to drawn their and give their attention. Landmark cases, spends special history series, produced in partnership with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court
Captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 would either of your guests argue or say theres legitimacy to that argument that affirmative action per se is a right and my second question is about affirmative action on the federal level, a number of years ago i remembered there was a president ial candidate and one of his big campaign stump lines was the first thing he would do when he took his hand off the bible after he became president was sign an executive order to outlaw all federal affirmative action. Would it be that easy for a President Trump or any president to get rid of affirmative action that way . Thanks very much. Thank you. Let me start with your first question and then, randy, im sure has a lot of thoughts as well. I was involved in that case, the Southern Michigan case that youre talking about. I thought your question was great. It totally summarized exactly the issue which is you have in michigan and california state referendum that ban affirmative action in t
Having business before the Supreme Court will want to draw near and give their attention. Announcer landmark cases, cspans special history series. Exploring the human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 Supreme Court decisions. Quite often, in our famous decisions, the Supreme Court was unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in the believe in the rule of law. Tonights case is katz v. United states. It is a 1967 case. Charles katz was an unlikely hero. He took his wiretapping case to the Supreme Court and in a seven to one decision expanded our privacy rights. We will begin by listening to Justice Samuel alito in his constitution hearings where he talked about the importance of the kats case. I was talking about cats versus the United States this morning in relation to wiretapping. You had to look into property law in the interest of an invasion, and then with the de