The Three Whisky Happy Hour: From Birthright Religion to “Lockistotle”
Notre Dame’s Tocqueville professor of political science, Vincent Phillip Munoz (Phil to his freinds and colleagues), joins this special episode which finds all three of your regular bartenders in the same room for once while on the road in Austin, Texas. Phil is one of the leading scholars of religious liberty in the U.S., and after a progress report on the Iran War (we’re still winning), and a prolonged look at the Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case heard this week, we pick Phil’s brain about the status of school prayer, and whether a restoration of organized prayer in public schools has a prayer of happening, taking as our cue Gerry Bradley’s recent and provocative First Things article, “How To Bring Back School Prayer.”
From there we briefly (but alas because we were out of sufficient time) but inadequately treat Phil’s terrifically concise CRB essay “Ancient and Modern: How Straussians Interpret the Founding,” mostly to annoy John Yoo—and we succeeded!
The Three Whiskey Happy Hour
The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Sister Souljah Time for the Dems?
March 8, 2025 episode of The Three Whisky Happy Hour titled "Sister Souljah Time for the Dems?"
The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Zoned Out on Protests?
Lucretia, John Yoo, and Steve Hayward discuss the landmark Supreme Court case 'Euclid v. Ambler Realty.'
Constitutionalism
Amicus Brief: Hon. William P. Barr and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey in Support of Petitioners
Former AGs Barr and Mukasey Cite Civitas in a SCOTUS Brief
Rational Judicial Review: Constitutions as Power-sharing Agreements, Secession, and the Problem of Dred Scott
Judicial review and originalism serve as valuable commitment mechanisms to enforce future compliance with a political bargain.
.avif)
State Courts Can’t Run Foreign Policy
Suncor is also a golden opportunity for the justices to stop local officials from interfering with an industry critical to foreign and national-security policy.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
When Can a Crass Political Remark Be Deemed an Indictable “Threat of Violence”?
When can a crass political remark be deemed an indictable “threat of violence”? When those charged with recognizing the law’s “supremacy” and the “limitations” on their authority disavow both principles.
Struck By Lightning Fifty Years Later: The Court’s Broken Promise on the Death Penalty
The Supreme Court has become the source of the very arbitrariness it set out to eliminate.
Get the Civitas Outlook daily digest, plus new research and events.