Constitutional Chats Presented By Constituting America Cathy Gillespie

As Americans, do we sometimes have a tendency to take freedom for granted?  When it’s something most of us have lived with our entire lives, the answer is assuredly yes.  That’s to be expected as we can’t fully comprehend what it is to live without. But ask anyone born under a dictator or totalitarian regime and they quickly remind of us of the blessings of liberty, since they once lived without it.  To help remind us of this blessing of freedom, we are honored to have Ambassador Aldona Woś.  Polish born, Ambassador Woś served as the US Ambassador to Estonia during the George W. Bush Administration and is currently the President of the Institute for World Politics. Her personal story is a compelling reminder that freedom is not free, nor is it permanent. 

The 16th Amendment gives power to congress to “lay and collect taxes.”  After all, a country has to have an ability to raise revenue. When it comes to that revenue, we have had a tradition of paying taxes on income, not the value of an investment, like paying taxes when we sell a few shares of stock in a company and not on the growth of that stock every year we own it.  Those are called realized gains.  There is discussion in the federal government to change that and tax unrealized gains meaning we would have to pay taxes on the increase in value in our homes or investments even before we sell that possession.  The genesis of this Supreme Court case was a provision in the tax cuts package passed and signed into law in 2017 to help pay for those cuts.  We know, tax code and tax law are confusing.  Fortunately, to help us navigate this confusing topic, we have a very special guest with an impressive legal career.  Paul Clement is the country’s former Solicitor General (the Department of Justice’s chief lawyer in front of the Supreme Court), now in private practice.  He has argued more than 100 cases in front of the Supreme Court, more than any other lawyer since 2000, in or out of government.

The Constitution dictates every 10 years we undergo a Census to count how many people live in each state.  Based off these population numbers, congressional seats are then apportioned.  States who lost population might lose a seat and states who grew may gain a seat or two since we can only have 435 total seats in the U.S. House.  This brings up an obvious question: who gets to redraw congressional districts after apportionment and can they redraw those districts for a political benefit?  This is where gerrymandering comes into play.  According to our guest expert, “gerrymandering” is drawing districts that are perceived to be unfair in their representation.  To further complicate the issue, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 placed restrictions on how these districts are redrawn and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have further altered this process.  The current Supreme Court case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has the potential to challenge again how districts are redrawn. It’s a complicated issue but we are grateful to have as our guest Mark Braden, an attorney with BakerHostetler who specializes in election law and voting issues to help us navigate this issue.

City Councils all across the country have been tackling an issue that has bipartisan concern: how to tackle homeless populations within their cities.  Grants Pass, OR., is one such city.  Grants Pass is in the middle of the Supreme Court case Johnson v. Grants Pass that is challenging that city’s ability to levy civil and criminal punishments to deter homeless encampments.  A Supreme Court decision is expected this summer.  To help our student panel understand the broad implications of this Supreme Court case and the “strait jacket” put on cities by lower courts to enforce their ordinances, we are delighted to welcome Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation for this timely chat.

Trial by jury and fair court proceedings bound by constitutional restraint are bedrock principles of our federal government.  Imagine being charged with a crime by a federal agency except the agency handles the entire court proceedings with a judge on its payroll.  The Securities and Exchange Commission was created by a 1934 act in response to the Great Depression and Stock Market Crash of 1929.  In 2008, in response to the financial crisis, its powers were significantly expanded through the Dodd Frank Act.  Under that legislation, the SEC was allowed to have in-house court proceedings with administrative law judges it hires.  As such, prosecutorial, judicial, enforcement and punishment power is all held within a singular agency.  A current Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, is challenging that power.  Join our all-star student panel and our special guest, Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we discuss this case, its ramifications and the caution George Washington gave us when he spoke against unfair quasi-courts.

In February of this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Ohio v. EPA.  This case challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Good Neighbor Plan which aims to curb pollution carried by the wind into neighboring states. As usual, legal proceedings can easily become confusing as a lawsuit makes its way to the Supreme Court.  Fortunately, we are welcoming back Steve Bradbury, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, to help us unravel this case as we discuss the background and ramifications of this lawsuit.