Image 01 Image 03

Constitutional Crisis? Article II v. Article III (Online Event, May 18, 8 p.m. Eastern)

Constitutional Crisis? Article II v. Article III (Online Event, May 18, 8 p.m. Eastern)

Is there a “consitutional crisis”? And if so, who is causing it, the executive branch or the judiciary? Join us for a free online event with Prof. William Jacobson, Prof. Glenn Reynolds, and Attorney Will Chamberlain.

The battle between Article III (the judiciary) and Article II (the Executive Branch) has dominated the news since Trump started his second term.

Dating back to just after the 2024 election, Democrats organized, financed, and staffed (with hundreds of lawyers) a plan to bury Trump 2.0 in litigation over everything in an attempt to sabotage, or at least stall, his presidency. And we have seen it unfold in over 200 cases including some crazy district court temporary restraining orders, many of which have been stayed on appeal but still bought The Resistance weeks of relief it didn’t deserve. Whethre the executive branch or the judiciary is overstepping its boundaries is driving much of politics.

In light of this, we are thrilled to present an online event, Constitutional Crisis? Article II v. Article III.

DATE: SUNDAY NIGHT, MAY 18

TIME: 8:00 P.M. Eastern

COST: FREE – REGISTER HERE

We will discuss the executive branch’s attempt to deal with illegal immigration, particularly the attempt to remove gang members, and the Executive Orders and other actions taken concerning education, and the litigations and court ruling attempting to prevent funding cut offs and reform.

We’re excited to have with us three panelists: Professor William Jacobson, President and founder of the Legal Insurrection Foundation (LIF) and Clinical Law Professor at Cornell Law School; Professor Glenn Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law; and Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project.

More about our panelists:

William A. Jacobson is a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. He is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School. Prior to joining the Cornell law faculty in 2007, Professor Jacobson practiced law in New York City (1985-1993) and Providence, Rhode Island (1994-2006). A more complete listing of Professor Jacobson’s professional background is available at the Cornell Law School website. Professor Jacobson was the founder of Legal Insurrection website in 2008.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law, where he teaches Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and a variety of other courses.  He has written for numerous law reviews including the Columbia, Penn, Virginia, Northwestern, California, and Southern California Law Reviews, as well as publications ranging from The Atlantic to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal.  He writes a regular column for the New York Post, and was the founder of Instapundit.

Will Chamberlain is currently Senior Counsel at the Article III Project. He graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 2015. Later that year, he joined Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan in Los Angeles, CA as an associate. He has also worked as an attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where his practice focused on class action litigation. In 2019, he revived Human Events, the nation’s oldest conservative magazine, where he served as both publisher and editor-in-chief. More recently, he worked for Governor Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign as well as his executive office.

The event will be moderated by Kemberlee Kaye, Operations and Editorial Director of the Legal Insurrection Foundation (LIF).

This is a virtual event. While attendance is always free, pre-registration is required.

REGISTER HERE

When you register, you will receive a unique Zoom webinar log-in to the email you used to register. This email will come directly from Zoom. If you do not receive an email directly to your in-box, please check spam.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 4
fscarn | May 6, 2025 at 9:37 pm

Crisis isn’t the correct descriptor of the issue, imo, since the text of the Constitution is clear. Rather, it’s faithfulness to the Article VI oath which every one of the players have pledged an allegiance.

Article II, section 1 uses the definite article “the” in assigning all executive power to the president; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

This power is not a shared power. The president has it all. And because the president has it all, the judiciary has none. Often called the unitary view of executive power.

The problem then is that judicial officers are not being faithful to their oaths.


 
 0 
 
 2
walls | May 7, 2025 at 6:59 am

en Eisenhower deported hundreds of thousands of illegals in the 1950’s via Operation Wetback. I’m unaware of the Earl Warren court throwing a monkey wrench at the plan. The Warren court was MUCH BETTER than the Roberts court. Roberts is a traitor.


     
     1 
     
     1
    Sultan in reply to walls. | May 7, 2025 at 11:44 am

    That is rather harsh. Roberts simply has the viability of the Supreme Court (and judicial branch) as his lodestar because he (and many many others) believe in the absolute inviolability of Marbury v Madison. Yes, the President has “the” entire executive power but he cannot have the unchallengeable power to define what the “executive power” encompasses. If he does, the meaning of “checks and balances” disappears. If he does not, the Supreme Court (and, or Congress) must have the responsibility (power) to establish the metes and bounds of the executive power. CJ Roberts is therefore between that rock and that hard place and he is not, by any means, a “traitor”. However, because he represents the Judicial Branch, which has a big dog in this fight, he must not succumb to the temptation to draw that line too far to one side.

    What tends to be ignored in this debate is the role of Congress under the Constitution. IMHO it is Congress which has totally dropped the ball. They have passed laws that GRANT the President virtually unlimited discretion in interpreting and enforcing that law. They have established unelected agencies that are GRANTED such power too. I believe that CJ Roberts will “solve” this problem by declaring many of the laws which are at issue to be unconstitutional delegations of legislative power, thus ruling against the President but not on the merits, but by kicking the matter back to Congress with a clear message: DO YOUR JOB.


       
       0 
       
       0
      kjon in reply to Sultan. | May 13, 2025 at 7:01 am

      I think what Walls is saying is that ultimately the unelected Judiciary is the law of the land and the Executive ( the only position elected by all of the people) must bow to the myriad of Federal judges despite the plain language of Article II. However it is the Congress that actually controls the President via the impeachment process. The fundamental problem is Presidents have allowed an authority vacuum to occur and the various Federal Judges have filled the vacuum. If The Supreme court fails to make a decision on the meaning of Article II then the President has no option other than to force the court to take a position.


 
 1 
 
 1
Danny | May 7, 2025 at 10:06 pm

Just a reminder Biden lost in court all the time on issues ranging from EPA authority to gun rights to his student debt forgiveness.

Justice Sotomayor just told an ABA audience that “Our job is to stand up” and that “we can’t lose the battles we are facing.” Also: “We need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight.”
https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/1920906091845873838


 
 0 
 
 0
catscradle | May 13, 2025 at 12:55 pm

Prof. Margot Cleveland:
“I absolutely LOVE how Trump Administration is wiping SCOTUS’ face in fact its injunction was so unthought-through it technically barred deportation of tDa members deportable for other reasons & forcing SCOTUS to acknowledge mistake by altering injunction”

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1922305077538169079.html


 
 0 
 
 0
catscradle | May 13, 2025 at 1:24 pm

Prof. Josh Blackman:
“I remain baffled why the Court is willing to move heaven and earth to provide assistance to criminal aliens, but does nothing when other litigants come to the Court seeking emergency relief”

“Solicitor General Is Still Waiting For An Actual Ruling In A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Nearly a month has elapsed since the ACLU’s very good Friday.”

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/13/solicitor-general-is-still-waiting-for-an-actual-ruling-in-a-a-r-p-v-trump/

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.