app_store_button

google_play_button

DK - Details page - Device banner - 894x1036

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst 

Cato Institute

The Cato Events Podcast brings you live recordings from the Cato Institute's events, where leading scholars, policymakers, journalists, and experts come together each week to discuss the ideas and issues shaping our world. From economic policy and constitutional law to technology, foreign affairs, and individual liberty, each episode captures timely conversations, fresh perspectives, and engaging debate straight from the stage. Whether you're looking to stay informed or explore new ideas, the Cato Events Podcast offers a front-row seat to the discussions happening at Cato every week.
 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cato Event Podcast

The Cato Institute’s new edited volume, A History of Repeated Injuries, explores simple but profound questions: 250 years after the Declaration of Independence, how successful have we been in escaping tyranny? Are we entirely free of the “injuries and usurpations” of which the Framers complained? Or have modern analogues of old tyrannies crept into our own government, leading to losses of liberty akin to those suffered by the colonists? Four authors of different chapters in the book will discuss these questions with respect to jury rights, taxation, immigration policy, and foreign policy.
 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A History of Repeated Injuries

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has long exercised significant authority over broadcast media beyond what is typically tolerated under the First Amendment. Under various chairs and presidential administrations, the FCC has overstretched its authority. Recent actions have drawn particular attention, such as when Chairman Brendan Carr publicly pressured and threatened to punish ABC/​Disney over a comment on Jimmy Kimmel Live. That incident does not exist in isolation, with friction between the commission and broadcasters steadily rising over the past 12 months over myriad issues including the unprecedented early review of ABC’s broadcast licenses. The FCC points to the public interest standard and policies such as news distortion and the equal-time rule to justify its actions.

How should such policies be considered in light of today’s media ecosystem and the broader values of free expression? Please join us for an event that will discuss how the FCC’s actions toward broadcast media are affecting free expression, what challenges these actions might face in courts, and how policymakers could prevent such abuse.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Free Expression Under Fire from the FCC

What does life on the front lines of criminal justice actually look like—and what can it teach us about the state of American law today? Please join us for a discussion with Randy Barnett on his new memoir, Felony Review: Tales of True Crime and Corruption in Chicago, a gripping behind-the-scenes account of his years as a young prosecutor in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Felony Review: Tales of True Crime and Corruption in Chicago

In the recently published No Compulsion in Religion—No Exceptions: Islamic Arguments for Religious Freedom, Cato senior fellow Mustafa Akyol collaborated with a team of international Muslim scholars to articulate a noncoercive vision of Islam. Among the issues addressed in the book are blasphemy laws that restrict free speech in dozens of countries—with Pakistan often regarded as home to some of the most troubling cases.

Akyol will discuss the issue with two Pakistani scholars: Husnul Amin, author of the book’s chapter on blasphemy, and Muhammad Khalid Masud, the book’s academic adviser and a distinguished scholar of Islamic law and theology. The three will also explore how a reformist reading of the Qur’an and other Islamic sources can help build a case against blasphemy laws.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Compulsion in Speech: Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan and Beyond

Many Americans think they understand today’s Supreme Court: six conservative justices appointed by Republicans, three liberals appointed by Democrats, and predictably partisan outcomes, especially in the “big” cases. But Sarah Isgur, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and one of the savviest Court-watchers in the country, is here to tell you that’s wrong.

In Last Branch Standing, Isgur argues that the conventional left-right framing fundamentally misconceives how the justices decide questions—not cases!—and that once you understand how they really think, the Court looks far more like a 3–3–3 institution than a 6–3 one. She also takes readers inside the building itself: the personalities, the quirks, the clerk culture, and the institutional dynamics that shape outcomes far more than partisan affiliation alone.

Isgur’s account of the Court’s role in our current constitutional moment is equally illuminating. With Congress having largely abdicated its lawmaking responsibilities, presidents of both parties have rushed to fill the resulting policy vacuum through executive action—often setting themselves on a collision course with SCOTUS. And while the shadow docket creates a misleading impression of unremitting executive branch success, the full picture of how the current administration actually fares before the Court may surprise you.

Join us for a conversation with Sarah Isgur about what may be the last constitutionally functioning branch of American government.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court

Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee birthright citizenship to persons born in the United States to parents without permanent immigration status? Please join us for an insightful discussion with a group of scholars who will break down Trump v. Barbara, consider the recent Supreme Court oral argument, and explore the approaches the Court might take as it reaches a decision.
 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump v. Barbara: Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court

President Trump has repeatedly promised to withdraw US forces from Europe in an ongoing debate over America’s role in NATO. Earlier this month, the Pentagon announced that 5,000 troops will be withdrawn from bases in Germany over the next 6 to 12 months, out of roughly 36,000 US personnel based in the country. Although the justification was ostensibly Germany’s unwillingness to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a withdrawal is consonant with Trump’s prior statements and his effort to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany in 2020. More than 75 years after the founding of NATO, is a US withdrawal from Germany warranted? What will be the likely consequences? And can the administration sustain a burden-shift to Europe? Please join our panel of distinguished experts on transatlantic security to discuss these questions.
 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Should the United States Withdraw Troops from Germany?

The Summer of Our Discontent confronts the breakdown of civility in American society. Civil discourse has given way to identitarianism, altering our media, education, policing, and the ambient language and culture we use to make sense of our lives. In his book, Thomas Chatterton Williams chronicles the transformation of social justice activism following the summer of 2020. He explores how a culture of racial identitarianism undermines individual agency and empowerment.

Join Williams for a discussion with Cato research fellow Erec Smith about the existential crisis facing American liberalism, and how we might move beyond the current impasse toward a more integrated and resilient public square.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Summer of Our Discontent: The Age of Certainty and the Demise of Discourse

The Trump administration has elevated the strategic importance of the Western Hemisphere to the United States at a time when countries in the region are turning away from leftist populism. Can dollarization play a key role in achieving stability and growth in Latin America? John Cochrane, David Malpass, and Emilio Ocampo will discuss the benefits of dollarization to Latin American countries with a history of bad monetary policy, why dollarization in the Americas would be good for the United States, and how adopting the dollar as the legal currency has worked out in Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador. The speakers will discuss ways of dollarizing and why that reform is especially relevant to Argentina and Venezuela today.
 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Has the Time Come for Dollarization in the Americas?

A free, open, and civil society depends on the freedom of individuals and institutions to direct private resources toward the causes they value. Today, that freedom faces growing pressure as the federal government seeks to use nonprofit status as a lever of political control. 

Join us for a conversation with President and CEO of DonorsTrust Lawson Bader, Cato Senior Fellow Walter Olson, and President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation John Palfrey on the importance of philanthropic freedom and what’s at stake when the state asserts authority over private giving.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Freedom to Give: Philanthropy, Civil Society, and the Limits of State Power

In 1905, the Supreme Court rendered two landmark decisions on the scope of individual liberty: Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Lochner v. New York. Jacobson’s broad deference to public health authority lived side by side with Lochner’s broader conception of economic liberty. While the restrictive precedent, Jacobson, now governs all pandemic response, Lochner is no longer available as a check, having been thrown in the dustbin of legal history. Judges follow a variant of Jacobson that’s far removed from the actual decision to resolve disputes over religious freedom, abortion, gun rights, voting, and more. Over the course of a century, four prominent justices established the irrepressible myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

At a time when state police power has imposed unprecedented limits on individuals’ ability to provide for themselves, Lochner should be brought out of lockdown. The rationales for Lochner’s subsequent disavowal by the Court are largely inapplicable to the COVID-19 situation. Shutdown orders and the like have an economic effect but are not economic policy. They may be one of the broadest assertions of sovereign authority in peacetime, but we lack the constitutional language to deal with the potential danger to liberty implicated by such measures. Please join Josh Blackman and Eugene Kontorovich to discuss their recent work in this area, with commentary by Wendy Mariner.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

COVID and the Constitution: Jacobson, Lochner, Mandates, and Lockdowns

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst

Other podcasts you might like ...