bulch prie rule of law. president price asked me to share his deep regret that he could not join us this evening due to the travel delays that are aff president price asked me to share his deep regret that he could not join us this evening due to the travel delays that are affecting so many people right now. but we are delighted that so many distinguished guests are here with us. the chief justice of the united states, john g roberts and his wife jane sullivan roberts, justice o'connor's son, scott st o'connor, and his wife joni, susan -- [inaudible] cofounder of the institute, and many current and former members of our federal and state judiciaries including chief justice paul m. n if ubc of north carolina -- nuby. i'm also lighted to see so many friends, faculty, students and alumni of cook law school. peter khan, the chair of the advisory board and a former trustee of duke university, is also a here along with several current and former members of the advisory board, all of whom have helped make the insti

well, it's all about the law, but you have lawyers to enforce that law.then that law just really is no good, doesn't exist. i mean, anything. and our were the poorest of the poor. we didn't have any lawyers. and so we observed what was going on around there. and in the late sixties, and that was the civil rights movement and black people advocating for equal rights under the laws of this country to free from discrimination. of course, that was the law. and they were poor. they didn't have money for lawyers, but they started this in double act legal defense fund, a nonprofit raising funds hiring lawyers and making them to represent black people in these civil rights cases. and of course, they were winning and changing everything. and so kind of noticed that and figured out that what we ought to try to do, if we could to get through law school is to try to organize a national native non organization to raise money, hire lawyers and make them to represent our people on our indian rights issues. we had seen how that had some success through another program th

code becomes the law of war. thousands of copies. the lieber code the all hundred and 56 provisions of it are 157, depending on how you count them. the the thousand copies of the letter lieber code are and given to almost every officer in the united army during the war. so the officers have their hands. what the rules are and so that leads, of course, to to some of the questions about that we heard today after after the lieber code is put in place. why are some of these officers doing things which seem to be in violation of the lieber code and why aren't they cracking down on soldier who are violating the code. and the answer, of course, is always because in what people call the fog of war lots of things happened that nobody knows about nobody's there to to implement. the code has a very special and secure place in the history of international efforts to use law limit war. the military historian sir adam roberts writes that they were responses to the wars of their time and to developments, science and technology.

those laws are enforced. host: loretta, democrat line. thanks for calling back. i am sorry i hung up on you. caller: thank you. od mning, jonathan. good morning, america. yesterday, 11 family and friends, we all went to vote yesterday m afr voting, we went to eakfast. and i'm telling you, it was, i don't think we dispersed until likeor 30. we wasavin such a good time st tking about everything. but my call specifically is about january 6. and the secret service just had all these investigations about the trump attempted assassination, but they skipped over what happened to the texts that were erased on january, up to january 6. they eat erased all the tapes may be from january 1 -- they erased all the tapes may be from january 1 two we don't even know where it ended. not only did they erase the texts from the individual phones, they erased the information from the cloud. and i am calling to say that it takes specific people to do that kind of stuff and i don't like the kind of people that trump got doing thing

levy professor of the practice of law and director of the vulch institute at duke law school. the judge retired after 25 years as a federal district judge in maryland before joining us here at duke law last year. he will present the vulch prize to scott o'connor who will accept on behalf of his late mother, justice sandra day o'connor. scott o'connor recently retired from a career in commercial real estate in keeping with the lessons instilled in him by his parents, he is also a lifelong public servant having served two terms as city counselman and a volunteer in organizations, all while working continuously to preserve his mother's legacy. following remarks from mr. o'connor, david f. levy will introduce the remainder of our program. david is the former dean of duke law school, the former director of the institute and a former chief united states district judge for the eastern district of california. he is now the president of the american law institute. thank you very much to all of our distinguished speakers and to all of you for being here today. now i will turn it over to

specific laws. court looked at the argument by the muskogee creek nation that said our reservation is still intact. congress has never diminished dg change the reservation. we still have jurisdiction over all of this land within our original reservation. which includes the city of tulsa,nd oklahoma. and a lot of other places. the supreme court looked at all of the legislation for everything that's open in oklahoma and said it's never disestablish that reservation for those boundaries are still in effect. the tribal jurisdiction still in effect on that original reservation. since that it's been expanded to four other tribes that has similar laws like the muskogee creek nation. about a third of oklahoma now is within indian reservation boundaries.ag that was again a tribute to the supreme court upholding federal indian law that's the only way to diminish the reservation's iscongress has to pass an act. people cannot assume this and that happened. and so that reservation jurisdiction is gone. no itgr i

we are doing clecs which are law enforcement commissioning. tribal law enforcement.ot to take credit for that. we do the training on it. something like 500 officers a year for the program. it is not just the surging and part of the success this year. they ran it for last summer, too slightly fewer staff, the result not as high but also not partnered the collaboration with tribal law enforcement, really, the state local law enforcement, they often are the ones that have the jurisdiction to prosecute these cases. >> thank you for that. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you all for being here. this is an incredible day for all of us. commissioner, let's say today you are the secretary of the department of indigenous affairs you are also an attorney. >> i think you are queen for the day. >> i was out. i am sorry. sorry for the demotion. you have the ability to craft a bill that you have 30 seconds to answer, how do we craft that bill, in english. [laughter] not lawyer. >> cross deputization is really a marvel when it works really well. there is trust and there is respect be

trafficking laws are very similar.sons report has a three tier ranking system where they rank countries around the globe in terms of what they are doing on trafficking. you know, they will rank countries and make a series of suggestions. for many middle eastern countries, they will say that you need to get off the watchlist. you need to tighten your borders and you need to increase your prosecutions, double your prosecutions. rates of women's shelters where women are brought out. often times by their hair and incarcerated and survivors are re- victimized. i think someone mentioned on the panel before that they are re- victimized by having to perform in court. there are many many examples of this. you have a country like iran which is where spent a lot of my time working as well. there exists laws against extramarital mac. it means if you are not married, if you are a member of the lgbtq community, cannot get married, you suddenly cannot access any kind of sexual reproductive rights. the average rates right now is rough

york law school. she served as the president of the american civil liberties union from 1991 until 2008 and is currently a senior fellow with the foundation for individual rights in education. she's a leading expert and intellectual warrior on behalf of freedom of speech and civil liberties. her contributions on that front are far too numerous to mention. so, we will start by having anastasia introduce her paper. anastasia: think you're having -- thank you for having me. it is an honor to be next to such esteemed co. can. my interest in this topic comes from a practical angle. i'm a practicing constitutional attorney mostly specializing in economic liberty cases. representing small businesses, would be entrepreneurs that have essentially been shut out of their occupation, prevented from putting food on the table by, what i think most people would characterize as overly onerous and sometimes explicitly anticompetitive regulation. and i have found pretty ridiculous laws in my life. those cases are still

what were called the comstock laws, state and federal laws. the federal law which is the one we know about which is, the way you clean -- can use federal law, you cannot use the mail to cross state lines with any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of contraception in procuring an abortion. also for lascivious intent. i'm not going to go over this in detail. the comstock law are explicitly about free-speech. they are always brought either against left-wing radicals or women who are pushing for women's rights. the crucial decision that finally begins to undo comstock is a case brought by margaret sanger. a half-century after these laws are established. subsequent to that, i think there were decisions. the sanger decision said, you can't these laws. if they have medical purposes, the lasciviousness doesn't apply. it's at that point that comstock becomes a zombie law. what's the legal word? dissuade you to. i have a feeling, if this history were better known, antiabortion people with not bs -- be as likely to hold comstock as

i mean that's what the law is. the jury to play the facts of the law. and he walked free. we're sending the message that you can just do this. this is ok. great on was a teenager, was confronted since the killing of treyvon martin 1st brought standard ground into the spotlight over a decade ago. the laws have proliferated guilty, 38 states now have some version of stand your ground, also known as shoot 1st. laws by critics data show. some of the states have seen a rise in gun killings and war shooters like george zimmerman are going free. you're saying that these laws actually encourage more violence, is, is that what you're seeing when you try somebody's cases? because everybody has a guy and because people are out in absolute right, the tension is high in every single conversation. and people know that like with the church, the doing courtesy step over here. right. sitting in front seat the so what making sure well i, i guess the scared the hell. i don't think i've ever had anybody get my face like that if i was 20 years younger or something like that, i might have just

with laws like public law 280. with limited funding, public law 280 says in those areas for first responders, criminal jurisdiction, don't have enough funding as it is to keep obligations, we can't extend it. that is how we get into this situation. >> i could ask so many questions. i appreciate the work you are doing and the focus needs to be on the resources. thank you for the current work you are doing. thank you for your testimony. appreciate based on the testimony we heard today but the approach to understanding the healing process for all the wrongs we've heard discussed and how families are treated. the nursing program, one of the places where not a huge investment making a big difference. this is being done in three communities, that was an essential part of all of this. it would be awesome to have this integrated throughout. we are out there, at the basic level, notwithstanding law enforcement jurisdiction and authorities to have a scientific medical capacity, to have that immediate opportunity for investig

the law is unequivocally excellent, and the law should have been made a long time ago. and i think that they and all their families should be deported from the state of israel to their countries. we have the walls and it was the wish to think about everything to submit to is if someone wants to, sorry to do d, how to do that and think about this family. i don't think that any turns is the can that he has knowledge of his child of the decision. oh acts. i believe that there is no such thing cuz um, collective responsibility. if uh, same idea. throwing up the and the mirror for for the sale, no place in the sale. oh, it's remains on certain whether the load will apply to residents of the occupied palestinian territories, including is jerusalem and the west bank. but the locals expect the worst. it will have to be a couple of years to expel the whole family is extremely dangerous and harmful, particularly for us palestinians because of one incident. it's not legal, but this isn't lawful. it's beyond the law and completely illegal and they specifically want, as you should k

is also a professor georgetown law. also andrew wiseman from the fbi general counsel from the general division in the district of new york. he's also an nyu law professor, and they are both msnbc legal analysts. andrew, let's begin with without prejudice. what does that mean in this dismissal? >> it means it can be brought again. when you dismiss something with prejudice, double jeopardy is attached. you cannot be charged again for the separate crime. >> with prejudice against the prosecution. >> exactly. you agree that it is over. and so without prejudice means, as if the case has not existed, and can be re-brought. and the real issue here is by jack smith doing this now as opposed to waiting, which is definitely an alternative he could have pursued, he really maximized the chances that the judge is going to do what she did, which is grant this without prejudice. and symbolically, that is also important, because jack smith is saying, was still the same view of the merits, and we are not dismissing these charges with pr

things like divorce law, family law, crime. those sorts of things. the stuff of our daily lives protect us, police. why do we have that separation of power? same idea. our different states going to want to live differently and make different decisions about education? for sure. and so it madison salvesen said one way we can help people live together is not only by bringing all of the ideas together in a room in congress and hashing them out, but also by creating little, little congresses, right? is new england different than the south in the west? yes, do they have different concerns? i am from colorado. totally different places. they are both beautiful and great flyfishing in both of them i love to fish. but at any rate, that was the idea maybe we can all live together better if we could also live a little bit differently. >> but we are almost out of time and we always run out of time we cannot end without asking about the bill of rights protects you want to go first on that line? >> okay the bill of rights. the original constitution as design inclu

so you can have law but if law seems to not have its enforcement, what's left for the people who thenoint and there is clearly and i was a argument over the last ten or 15 years a movement to erode respect for international law. but there's also a parallel movement which is a movement for greater accountability. we have the international criminal court we have that regional courts. we have notion of people being held to account in national courts. physicians for human rights has just joined the case in france that was brought against russia and other high-level officials for use of chemical weapons. the possibility they could be accountability for a sitting head of state from violating international law is something different for 25 years ago was completely out of the question. certainly when i went to law school it was not something that was believable. we have to focus and strengthen efforts to bring accountability, and at the same time we are working with colleagues from the world health organization, the icrc, to do something that larry has been pushing for years, to make the heal

laws to address those arms. >> we are focused on enforcing the law. the system and the fcc and state attorney general's to approach these unfair acts. our perspective is this conduct we don't recognize and they fail to stop the conduct. there is reports that apply this determination. the supreme court saturday federal law material that is or appears to be. you have this minimal ground. what it is indistinguishable from, that provision has largely been untested. the rules of the road, what can say about whether there is no gap in the law. we have to federal criminal and there is a narrative. to think they have no recourse but they were victimized. the material is an image of a minor. it is applied to the material and sustained convictions to reveal very confident about that. it is a-uppercase-letter and covers a.i. generated material from any material change so the way we generally cause the biggest ones want to make sure folks understand, if it is an identifiable minor end of its here a.i., we think prosecute. this is notional, pure doing these things

also known as the law of armed conflict or the law of war. the geneva conventions. and to whether they're blocking humanitarian assistance. because there is another law that says any country that blocks humanitarian assistance can not receive us weapons. so in the course of writing this report, i was a number of i was one of the several subject matter experts that was removed from the report by the state department at the end of at the end of april. and we were told we would see the report when it was released in may when that report came out on may 10th. and it was actually the 1st time the us admitted that israel is using us weapons to violate international humanitarian law. but then incredibly, it went on to state that israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance. i know that it's not true because i've seen the reports from our own experts and from humanitarian aid organizations. over the course of months, that is real, is blocking humanitarian assistance. in a number of ways. but to see that written in a joint report to congress, something that is so obviously

and they say this law, this evolution law, preferences, fundamentalists teachings, another said another piece of the tennessee state constitution said the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. and every citizen may or may freely speak right in print on any subject free speech. and finally, the tennessee state constitution also included a line that says it shall be the duty of the general assembly in future periods of government to cherish literature and science. and they argue the anti-evolution law does not cherish science. but judge ralston is going to dismiss all of this and he's going to say this act doesn't interfere with anyone worshiping god. they can go to whatever church they want and worship however they want. he says this doesn't violate free speech scopes can go out on the street corner and talk till his hoarse about evolution. but he's a state employee and as a state employee has to do what the state wants him to. he can quit his job and go do go somewhere where he can say whatever he wants, but when you sign on as a teacher, yo

these laws are about everyone. _ everybody else. these laws are about everyone.are - everybody else. these laws are | about everyone. they are about dying _ about everyone. they are about dying people. let say it is just— dying people. let say it is just for— dying people. let say it is just for dying people, are we bringing _ just for dying people, are we bringing people the right support at the end of their life so_ support at the end of their life so it _ support at the end of their life so it is an informed choice? _ life so it is an informed choice? is there a sense of, i haven't— choice? is there a sense of, i haven't got— choice? is there a sense of, i haven't got that, the pain control, _ haven't got that, the pain control, the support at home, the commode, walking frame, all of those — the commode, walking frame, all of those things that would make my life — of those things that would make my life better, i don't want to be a _ my life better, i don't want to be a burden on my family, so we are worried — be a burden on my family, so we are worried about

i am asking us to abide by our law u. s. law. and we can't even seem to do that. yeah, no i, i think that's right. i think there's some important lessons that the democrats need to learn from the selection cycle. and obviously the issue of goals are, itself was a driving motivator for a significant number of voters, particularly as you read friends in michigan. but there are other lessons here too, for the democratic policies that go well beyond that and look, speak to the lack of enthusiasm. you cannot be the policy over use if you have spent a year refreshing use, voices, you don't be the policy of national security. if you've spent a yeah, tearing down the international rules based order and you won't be the policy of diversity. if you will turn a blind eye to a genocide against the palestinian people. so all of those fronts, i hope that the democrats do take those lessons. the hot. uh, that is a debate that is just beginning, i think. now we see donald trump coming into office and he's, you know, decided to appoint mike huckabee and evangelical to his job as a

new york city passes law called the green light law under governor cuomo.haring between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement to determine if they are illegal immigrants. it gives them the access to a drivers license. i will tell you, there is one county in the state of new york, my good friend is a county executive, who refuse to enforce the law based on what cuomo in the new york democrats wanted. leticia james, our attorney general has threatened to go after and pursue and sue any of these counties that actually try to interfere with the law that was passed to protect illegal immigrants and prevent i.c.e. from intervening which would have saved laken riley, by the way, had laken riley, her murderer been detained by the u.s. police department. to georgia where he was able to murder laken riley. new york state law, the left wing that runs the state assembly. continuing to allow this happen under threat from the lawless malicious prosecution of leticia james who i think should be disbarred and removed from office for a number of things. >> polit

also known as the law of armed conflict or the law of war. the geneva conventions. and to whether they're blocking humanitarian assistance. because there is another law that says any country that blocks humanitarian assistance can not receive us weapons. so in the course of writing this report, i was a number of i was one of the several subject matter experts that was removed from the report by the state department at the end of at the end of april. and we were told we would see the report when it was released in may when that report came out on may 10th. and it was actually the 1st time the us admitted that israel is using us weapons to violate international humanitarian law. but then incredibly, it went on to state that israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance. i know that it's not true because i've seen the reports from our own experts and from humanitarian aid organizations. over the course of months, that is real, is blocking humanitarian assistance. in a number of ways. but to see that written in a joint report to congress, something that is so obviously

here's iowa's eugenics law, 1911. it allowed sterilization of, quote, idiots, feeble minded drunkards, drug fiends, epileptics, syphilitic moral and sexual perverts. and it made mandatory as the who have been twice convicted of a felony forced sterilization. and. this is two years after the scopes case. but i just want to give you a sense of how mainstream this came. 1927, the supreme court hears a case of a woman whose mother had been institutionalized. she was put in a foster home while there got pregnant when the foster home's nephew raped her. but she was then put a foster home and because the mother she was then put into an institution and they said that she's showing same traits as their mother. they required that she be forcibly sterilized before, she could be released. the case went to the united states supreme and there one of our greatest jurists, oliver holmes, great papa proponent of the first amendment and other things. well, finish opinion upholding virginia's eugenics law, saying it is better all the wo

it's not an unequal law. the law may treat japanese differently, because we're at war with japan. >> as long as you include an entire class of people, then there is no fifth amendment due process? >> well, as long as you apply the law as written equally, there's no equal protection violation. >> thank you. >> your honor, two brief points i would make, one is plaintiff has claimed that there is an irreparable injury here, but at worst, this is what would be analogous to a civil false imprisonment claim. damages recognized for centuries, and then secondly, apart prosecute merits, there is no jurisdiction for the court to hear this matter. will have has not stated any source of law that permits plaintiff to come here and take down an otherwise lawful executive order prior to its implementation against them. it would be a political question that the judiciary has no role in determining. it does not matter that plaintiff is a citizen. after all, being a citizen, risks that he could be drafted into the war and lose

turns out that one man is above the law. no woman has ever been above the law according to the current supreme court. the only way for a woman to become above the law is to become president of the united states. and so the day we knew was coming since the election came since jack smith requested the dismissal of both judge grante the dismissal without prejudice. we will get to the meaning of those two important words in a moment. jack smith's motion to dismiss relied on policy as rachel is just mentioning against prosecuting presidents of the united states while they are in office. the government's position on the merits of the defendants prosecution has not changed. that means jack smith thanks donald trump is still guilty in both of those cases. in the florida case concerning trump's possession classified material, smith asked for dismissal in the case only against donald trump not against donald trump's codefendants who are accused of lying to the fbi about their participation in donald trump's conspiracy to hide classifi

that was the law in tennessee. edward gardner, a 15 year old black youth, broke a neighbor's home in memphis. we made it to the scene and one of the neighbors was and saying he's breaking in next door. we're about time. we got there was a fence separating going on around the only plan out the back and straight across the yard and a police hold the 15 year old halted and the officer was able to see both his hands and could tell that he wasn't armed. but they also move to apprehend him and seeing that 15 year old tried to flee i tried to jump the six foot fence the officer fire struck and they had killed. it's a split second decision of the has to be made and i was quite comfortable with it i was familiar with our policy as far as shoot and don't shoot and just exercised that every other means had been exhausted. officer elton hyman maintains was not absolutely certain the youth was unarmed or whether anyone inside the house hurt. as it turned out, edward garner was unarmed. is crime taking $10 from an empty house. b

the law's most important. we operate under the rule of law. >> that's fantastic. think we've had some really great conversation here, some really great points. we're exactly at time. i know, susan, you have a harden stop. -- a hard stop. so thank you very much for your participation if you have to go. please do so. >> i do have to go but thank you. >> okay, good. >> i can stay for 5 minutes for questions, and then -- [inaudible] >> okay. so i'm going to call for one question if there are any burning questions in the room or on line. let us know. yes. here in the room. please introduce yourself. >> hi. i'm -- [inaudible] i'm an engineer at csis. thank you for taking the time to speak with us. as a student who studies both, like, stuff in the political world and stuff in the s.t.e.m. world, i'm just curious, one of the things i've noticed through taking classes in both fields is the the sheer size and scope of the foci of each is so wildly different from the others. i'm curious as professionals who have worked in this world if you agree, and if you do, how can we st

there's alwa -- it's always a question of federal law. gorsuch: "use" -- the term "use" depends upon common law duties in 1984? mr. feigin: well, your honor, we think "use" -- justice gorsuch: has any court ever said that? mr. feigin: -- incorporates the proximate cause requirement. justice gorsuch: yeah, yeah, but -- but -- mr. feigin: it hasn't -- your honor, it hasn't come up because, until the third circuit -- justice gorsuch: right. but it will after this case. justice jackson: mr. feigin, can just piggybacking on what justice gorsuch is saying. i guess i'm just trying to understand the government's position on what it means to use physical force against the person of another in an omission case. so let's -- let's take this hypothetical. say you have a lifeguard, and she has a duty of care to rescue children in the pool. a kid who she hates, hates, gets into the pool entirely of their own volition. is it your position that she uses physical force against this kid if she doesn't jump into the water when she sees him drowning? mr. feig

and uer federal law. the only issue before the court was a substantive issue of whether there was a violation of federal law. correct? that is really the only iss before us. it goes on and on about is this the first time they did not wave it, is it not the first time they did not wave it, the reason that is true is because they accept t waiver when there is a violation of a right and they do not accept the waiver when there is no violation of a right here they found no violation of a bright so they reached the substantive legal issue and said we will not wave. you do not find any case in oklahoma law and yr adversary can tell me where they found a constitutional violation either under state o federal law and said we will n accept eight pc pa waiver. cannot find it because it does not exist. so now we are on the federal issue. okay. that is all i am looking at. washere a brady violation. right. >> on the van treece issue, that is nonrecord evidence so its not before us. >> not only not be for you, but it w

the president signs them into law. and we don't make the laws. and and what was wrong with his what was wrong with his conviction? well, ultimately, your honor. yes. this was pursuant to a statute adopted by congress and an executive order. the evacuation part that is correct. i concede that. but the constitution portion limits what congress and the president can do, even in wartime. and that is ultimately the province and duty of this court to strike that balance. so that is your bottom line, essentially, that the statute was constitutional and legitimate. but the delegation of to to to the military to issue these order after order after order, which became broader and broader, that that's the real problem. well, my view would be that the court can look with deference at a judgment of military necessity, but it can't simply throw up its hands and say, we can't look at that at all. and here i think when you look first at the extraordinary statement at the beginning of the solicitor general's brief, that they do not rely on general to which 600 pa

while he is a lawyer, he practiced law for only a short time. in his congressional career has been distinguished by his extremism. for example, former congressman gaetz is regularly called for eliminating the justice department that he's now been nominated to lead. he also wants to abolish the justice department's components, most prominently, the federal bureau of investigation, the bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms and explosives. if they do not come to heel, his words. last year introduced legislation to eliminate the a.t.f. former congressman gaetz's main qualifications seems to be unquestioning loyalty to donald trumpment why do i keep referring to mr. gaetz as former congressman. that's due to the most serious concern about his being entrusted with this new responsibility, while mr. gaetz just won reelection in the 118th congress is still in session, he resigned his seat in the house of representatives last week. why? why would he quit the house at this point if he's just been reelected? he was an apparent attempt to prevent the house eth

in terms of law enforcement we have an estimated 218 law enforcement officers the national average 2.8fficers are needed per thousand members of the service population. that would mean we would need 560 officers to meet the national average. as for criminal investigators the navajo nation has 32 these investigators are responsible for investigating crimes committed by an indian and those crimes of fall under the major crime act 18 usc section 1153. thirty-two investigators to work in joint cooperation with the federal bureau of investigation and united states attorney's office. because of the lack of personnel are investigators also serve in the unique capacity of not only investigators but also corners and medical examiners. instead of spending their time investigating crimes and looking for genetic relatives missing or murray basement 75% of their time investigating all deaths even those that are considered to be natural deaths they complete and certified death certificate review medical assess medications administer external examinations of bodies, drop fluid, they do all the stuff