College of Arts and Sciences Case Western Reserve University

Building a new state is hard. A governing apparatus must be built, a populace convinced (not always willingly!) and a sense of what the state is and how it should act must make it intelligible to both its agents and citizens or subjects. How a state is built shapes its future – and is shaped by the past. Professor Strauss shows how somewhat similar challenges and inherited understandings led to both commonalities and differences in how authority was consolidated on both sides of the Straits. That has lessons for understanding both China and state-building.

The Constitution enshrines, explicitly or implicitly, the right to welcome immigrants — a political and legal journey that continues to be challenging and complex. Though the American Republic is certainly more democratic than it once was, issues such as discrimination against immigrants (regardless of legal status), as well as the extent to which the President has the power to enact immigration policy such as DACA, continue to raise concerns. Recent Supreme Court decisions, like Trump v. Hawaii (2018) and DHS v. University of California (2020) are indeed thought-provoking. To what extent can the Executive Branch constitutionally enact or terminate immigration programs?

The USA was founded in pursuit of a more perfect union. In the Elections Clause (Art I, Section 4) and several amendments (XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI), the Constitution enshrines, explicitly or implicitly, the right to vote — a political and legal journey that continues to be challenging and complex.

Though the American republic is certainly more democratic than it once was, issues such as voter ID laws, voter registration purges, and partisan gerrymandering have raised concerns about electoral fraud and discrimination against minorities. Recent Supreme Court decisions — Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — have failed to address key questions. How do states balance the integrity of elections and the individual right to vote? What role does the federal government have in preserving democracy throughout the USA?

The “yellow vest” demonstrations in France began in November as a response to a proposed gas tax increase. They quickly expanded to more violent protests against a wide range of perceived injustices perpetrated by non-responsive elites and the government of President Macron.

The events fit a long French tradition of how to influence an unresponsive state. But many of the grievances, such as rising income inequality and worries about national identity, do not seem peculiarly French at all. So to what extent is the French conflict a harbinger for other countries, and to what extent is it peculiarly French? Patrick Chamorel earned both his university degree and Ph.D. from Sciences-Po in Paris and holds a Master in Public Law from the University of Paris. In the 1990s he served as a Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Industry and in the Policy Planning Office of the Prime Minister. But for more than two decades he has lived mainly in the United States, studying and teaching about U.S. politics, French politics, and transatlantic relations.

The social contract upon which the United States government is based obliges the government to protect its citizens,and this may restrict certain of their liberties. Thus, a balance must be struck between the government’s duty to provide protection and a person’s right to privacy.

Pressure to eliminate the digital privacy of individuals is increasing. From the FBI’s efforts to decrypt the iPhone of the December 2015 San Bernardino mass shooter to Carpenter v. US (2017), the debate on privacy versus public safety needs to be addressed. How can the federal government strike a balance between privacy and public safety? What, if any, restrictions should be placed on the government when accessing private data during the course of a criminal investigation?

Universities that foster reasoned and thoughtful debate are vital to a thriving society. Since the passage of the Bill of Rights, Americans have enjoyed the right to free expression. Many forms of offensive speech are protected by the First Amendment, while obscenity and certain types of violent expression are not.

Pressure to snuff out free speech is increasing. From Middlebury College to UC Berkeley, protests have erupted into violence, turning the “marketplace of ideas” into a danger area for freedom of expression. How can universities strike a balance between free expression and the need for campus peace and safety? What, if any, restrictions should be placed on student expression at a private institution?