Corey Brettschneider's Blog, page 2
May 21, 2024
Giveaway for The Presidents and The People
We are giving away 25 copies of my forthcoming book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought To Defend It.
/giveaway/sh...
/giveaway/sh...
New book, starred review
The first pre-publication review from Publishers Weekly is in. I am happy to report that it is a very positive and rare "starred review." Here it is:
The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It
Corey Brettschneider (WW Norton)
Political scientist Brettschneider (The Oath and the Office) provides an essential survey of crises of democracy provoked by American presidents. He opens the account by describing anti-democratic activities and attitudes commonly associated with former president Trump—including plotting to undermine the certification of an upcoming election’s results, considering journalists enemies, using the attorney general against political foes, and making common cause with white nationalists—then reveals that the actions he’s summarizing were actually committed by five previous presidents. In chapters vividly recreating those crisis points, Brettschneider profiles the presidents—John Adams, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon—and the people who opposed them. Adams persecuted journalists and likely formulated a plot to steal the 1800 election; Buchanan, Johnson, and Wilson all used federal power to roll back African Americans� civil rights. Though Brettschneider contends that those four presidents were meaningfully opposed by an informed and politically active citizenry “galvanized on behalf of democracy,� he suggests that Nixon, who consistently acted as if above the law, offers a different lesson—“that the recovery of democratic principles is not inevitable.� Brettschneider savvily articulates how the structures that enabled Nixon remain largely in place today, and also offers captivating insight into how subsequent administrations recovered from each crisis. The result is an invaluable breakdown of present-day concerns in an illuminating historical context. (July)
The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It
Corey Brettschneider (WW Norton)
Political scientist Brettschneider (The Oath and the Office) provides an essential survey of crises of democracy provoked by American presidents. He opens the account by describing anti-democratic activities and attitudes commonly associated with former president Trump—including plotting to undermine the certification of an upcoming election’s results, considering journalists enemies, using the attorney general against political foes, and making common cause with white nationalists—then reveals that the actions he’s summarizing were actually committed by five previous presidents. In chapters vividly recreating those crisis points, Brettschneider profiles the presidents—John Adams, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon—and the people who opposed them. Adams persecuted journalists and likely formulated a plot to steal the 1800 election; Buchanan, Johnson, and Wilson all used federal power to roll back African Americans� civil rights. Though Brettschneider contends that those four presidents were meaningfully opposed by an informed and politically active citizenry “galvanized on behalf of democracy,� he suggests that Nixon, who consistently acted as if above the law, offers a different lesson—“that the recovery of democratic principles is not inevitable.� Brettschneider savvily articulates how the structures that enabled Nixon remain largely in place today, and also offers captivating insight into how subsequent administrations recovered from each crisis. The result is an invaluable breakdown of present-day concerns in an illuminating historical context. (July)
September 5, 2018
The Supreme Court
Yes, we should be concerned about #Kavanaugh's willingness to protect a president.
August 28, 2018
The Oath and the Office
My new book is now available for pre-order. It's called The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents. It's partly about the current administration, but it also has lots of relevant stories about past presidents and lessons for the future. I worked to make the book clear and engaging to read for a wide audience. Of course, given the news yesterday, it has become timely. Part of the book is about how to stop a president who blatantly disregards the oath of office. That is no longer a hypothetical.
The early reviews are great. Kirkus calls it "required reading for all Americans." The head of the ACLU legal department leading the charge against the Trump administration calls it "essential reading," Geoffrey Stone calls it "insightful" and Nancy Rosenblum says "this is a foothold from which we can survey the dangerous course the presidency has taken and our responsibility as citizens to defend the constitution.�
So here is where you can help. If you could pre-order and share with friends that would go a long way to helping make sure it has a wide audience. It will be in bookstores starting in mid-September, and we have a great media tour lined up--including TV interviews and a live event with MSNBC's Chris Hayes--but pre-orders now are a big part of making the book and its larger mission successful.
Here is the link to use to pre-order from your favorite vendor and share:
The early reviews are great. Kirkus calls it "required reading for all Americans." The head of the ACLU legal department leading the charge against the Trump administration calls it "essential reading," Geoffrey Stone calls it "insightful" and Nancy Rosenblum says "this is a foothold from which we can survey the dangerous course the presidency has taken and our responsibility as citizens to defend the constitution.�
So here is where you can help. If you could pre-order and share with friends that would go a long way to helping make sure it has a wide audience. It will be in bookstores starting in mid-September, and we have a great media tour lined up--including TV interviews and a live event with MSNBC's Chris Hayes--but pre-orders now are a big part of making the book and its larger mission successful.
Here is the link to use to pre-order from your favorite vendor and share:
July 9, 2018
Supreme Court interview
I just spoke to BBC Newshour about the Supreme Court and the future of abortion rights. You can listen here:
June 27, 2018
Kennedy's Retirement and How the Travel Ban Case Taints His Legacy
My comments for Politico on Kennedy's retirement and how the travel ban case taints his legacy:
‘Kennedy’s legacy will never recover from [his] tacit acquiescence to � racism�
Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University and visiting professor of Law at Fordham Law School. He is the author of the forthcoming book The Oath and the Office: A Guide To The Constitution For Future Presidents
Justice Kennedy has been lauded for leading the court’s recognition of the rights of same-sex couples, but his vote and decision in this term’s most important case will undercut a picture of him as a champion of justice. In the travel ban case—in the twilight of his career—Kennedy tainted his legacy by refusing to live up to the legal principles he established to fight bigotry.
Notably, in Romer v. Evans, Kennedy led the court in striking down a Colorado plebiscite that had revoked civil rights for gay people. Kennedy argued that because the law was based in bad motivations, specifically anti-gay “animus”—animus evidenced by public words and writing—that it was unconstitutional. That decision, along with another Kennedy penned that struck down bans on gay sodomy, were important building blocks for his majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which solidified the right to gay marriage.
Kennedy also penned the court’s decision in Lukumi. In that case the court struck down an ordinance that discriminated against adherents of the Santeria religion in Florida. In both cases, the presence of some supposedly reasonable motives for a policy did not allow the court to overlook spoken or written evidence of prejudice.
In his opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, Kennedy noted that while the government-sponsored prayer the court was considering was constitutional, other government-sponsored prayers motivated by and containing hateful speech or proselytizing language would not be.
Sound familiar? In these cases, and in the recent Masterpiece Cake Shop decision, the court, led by Kennedy, signaled that how lawmakers talk about the laws they pass isn’t some peripheral distraction. It is a central issue in understanding the legality of those laws. Biased language, it turns out, has real consequences.
But according to the court in Trump v. Hawaii, that language apparently didn’t matter when it comes to Muslims subject to Trump’s travel ban. In that case, Kennedy’s very own logic in Romer, Lukumi, Town of Greece and Masterpiece Cake Shop—the same logic that has driven some of his most important decisions—was thrown out the window (although it was embraced in Justice Sotomayor’s eloquent dissent). Yet Kennedy joined Roberts� opinion anyway. The court acknowledged the presence of the Trump administration’s bigoted motives—but then proceeded to ignore them, denying their centrality to the case—even though Trump’s anti-Muslim statements were far, far worse than the anti-Christian statements uttered by Colorado officials in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
In Trump v. Hawaii, instead of standing up for the constitutional values of dignity and equality that he has worked so long to promote, Kennedy was weak and inconsistent, fatally attempting to find “common ground� in a case where there is none. In this case, one side stands for a limited presidency and the values of religious diversity and anti-discrimination; the other side gives racism by our chief executive the force of law.
At the very end of his career, Kennedy—who had crusaded against intolerance—refused to stand up for the constitutional principles he had so powerfully established. No matter how eloquent and powerful his past defenses of dignity and equality may be, Kennedy’s legacy will never recover from this tacit acquiescence to the racism now emanating from our nation’s highest office.
‘Kennedy’s legacy will never recover from [his] tacit acquiescence to � racism�
Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University and visiting professor of Law at Fordham Law School. He is the author of the forthcoming book The Oath and the Office: A Guide To The Constitution For Future Presidents
Justice Kennedy has been lauded for leading the court’s recognition of the rights of same-sex couples, but his vote and decision in this term’s most important case will undercut a picture of him as a champion of justice. In the travel ban case—in the twilight of his career—Kennedy tainted his legacy by refusing to live up to the legal principles he established to fight bigotry.
Notably, in Romer v. Evans, Kennedy led the court in striking down a Colorado plebiscite that had revoked civil rights for gay people. Kennedy argued that because the law was based in bad motivations, specifically anti-gay “animus”—animus evidenced by public words and writing—that it was unconstitutional. That decision, along with another Kennedy penned that struck down bans on gay sodomy, were important building blocks for his majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which solidified the right to gay marriage.
Kennedy also penned the court’s decision in Lukumi. In that case the court struck down an ordinance that discriminated against adherents of the Santeria religion in Florida. In both cases, the presence of some supposedly reasonable motives for a policy did not allow the court to overlook spoken or written evidence of prejudice.
In his opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, Kennedy noted that while the government-sponsored prayer the court was considering was constitutional, other government-sponsored prayers motivated by and containing hateful speech or proselytizing language would not be.
Sound familiar? In these cases, and in the recent Masterpiece Cake Shop decision, the court, led by Kennedy, signaled that how lawmakers talk about the laws they pass isn’t some peripheral distraction. It is a central issue in understanding the legality of those laws. Biased language, it turns out, has real consequences.
But according to the court in Trump v. Hawaii, that language apparently didn’t matter when it comes to Muslims subject to Trump’s travel ban. In that case, Kennedy’s very own logic in Romer, Lukumi, Town of Greece and Masterpiece Cake Shop—the same logic that has driven some of his most important decisions—was thrown out the window (although it was embraced in Justice Sotomayor’s eloquent dissent). Yet Kennedy joined Roberts� opinion anyway. The court acknowledged the presence of the Trump administration’s bigoted motives—but then proceeded to ignore them, denying their centrality to the case—even though Trump’s anti-Muslim statements were far, far worse than the anti-Christian statements uttered by Colorado officials in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
In Trump v. Hawaii, instead of standing up for the constitutional values of dignity and equality that he has worked so long to promote, Kennedy was weak and inconsistent, fatally attempting to find “common ground� in a case where there is none. In this case, one side stands for a limited presidency and the values of religious diversity and anti-discrimination; the other side gives racism by our chief executive the force of law.
At the very end of his career, Kennedy—who had crusaded against intolerance—refused to stand up for the constitutional principles he had so powerfully established. No matter how eloquent and powerful his past defenses of dignity and equality may be, Kennedy’s legacy will never recover from this tacit acquiescence to the racism now emanating from our nation’s highest office.
June 2, 2018
Trump's pardon power. My comments for CNN
My worry is that Trump is getting better at understanding his constitutional power and using it for pernicious ends. Here are my comments on the recent pardons for CNN:
May 31, 2018
Win a copy of my new book
Today is the last chance to win a copy of my new book, The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents.
The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents
The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents
New starred review from Kirus
KIRKUS REVIEW FOR
The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents
A legal scholar advises presidents to read the Constitution with great care.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Brettschneider (Political Science/Brown Univ.; Civil Rights and Liberties: Cases and Readings in Constitutional Law and American Democracy, 2013, etc.) was shocked that “proposals to violate the Constitution that had been the stuff of far-fetched classroom hypotheticals� were part of Donald Trump’s agenda. The author responded in articles for Politico, Time.com, and the New York Times, which became the basis for this pointed, cogent, and authoritative analysis of presidential policy and power. Addressing future presidents (and certainly the current office holder) and all citizens, Brettschneider parses the text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, offers historical background to illuminate the reasons for and controversy over provisions, identifies salient exemplary cases, and concludes with recommendations for any president. He distinguishes between an originalist position, which reads the documents “according to the historical meaning of the words at the time of their passage,� and a “value-based reading,� which asks, “what is our best understanding of the moral principles of the Constitution enshrined in its text and in our case law?� Clearly, the author advocates a value-based reading, since originalists sometimes fail to investigate the history underlying certain provisions. Focusing on a question that arose during the George W. Bush administration regarding the use of “enhanced interrogation,� Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment did not apply, since extracting information is not technically punishment. Brettschneider argues, however, that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, was imported from the British Bill of Rights to end “the arbitrary and cruel abuses—especially torture—committed by kings and queens against their subjects.� The author offers a clear explanation of many complex issues, such as the provisions of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law; and the process involved in impeachment, including the question of whether obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.
A cleareyed, accessible, and informative primer: vital reading for all Americans.
The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents
A legal scholar advises presidents to read the Constitution with great care.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Brettschneider (Political Science/Brown Univ.; Civil Rights and Liberties: Cases and Readings in Constitutional Law and American Democracy, 2013, etc.) was shocked that “proposals to violate the Constitution that had been the stuff of far-fetched classroom hypotheticals� were part of Donald Trump’s agenda. The author responded in articles for Politico, Time.com, and the New York Times, which became the basis for this pointed, cogent, and authoritative analysis of presidential policy and power. Addressing future presidents (and certainly the current office holder) and all citizens, Brettschneider parses the text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, offers historical background to illuminate the reasons for and controversy over provisions, identifies salient exemplary cases, and concludes with recommendations for any president. He distinguishes between an originalist position, which reads the documents “according to the historical meaning of the words at the time of their passage,� and a “value-based reading,� which asks, “what is our best understanding of the moral principles of the Constitution enshrined in its text and in our case law?� Clearly, the author advocates a value-based reading, since originalists sometimes fail to investigate the history underlying certain provisions. Focusing on a question that arose during the George W. Bush administration regarding the use of “enhanced interrogation,� Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment did not apply, since extracting information is not technically punishment. Brettschneider argues, however, that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, was imported from the British Bill of Rights to end “the arbitrary and cruel abuses—especially torture—committed by kings and queens against their subjects.� The author offers a clear explanation of many complex issues, such as the provisions of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law; and the process involved in impeachment, including the question of whether obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.
A cleareyed, accessible, and informative primer: vital reading for all Americans.
