1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,440
Hey everyone, welcome back for 
another deep dive. 

2
00:00:03,240 --> 00:00:06,760
You know, law school exams in 
the bar exam can feel kind of 

3
00:00:06,760 --> 00:00:09,760
overwhelming at times, 
especially when you get to those

4
00:00:10,040 --> 00:00:13,440
modern constitutional issues. 
Yeah, it's like the Constitution

5
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:15,560
was written in a completely 
different world, right? 

6
00:00:15,560 --> 00:00:19,120
Like no Internet, no 
smartphones, no social media. 

7
00:00:19,240 --> 00:00:21,520
Exactly. 
So how are we supposed to apply 

8
00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:24,880
these like centuries old 
principles to the world we live 

9
00:00:24,880 --> 00:00:26,880
in today? 
That's exactly what we're going 

10
00:00:26,880 --> 00:00:29,480
to be diving into today, folks. 
It's almost like a CHEAT SHEET 

11
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:31,840
for navigating creating those 
constitutional landmines. 

12
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:34,480
We'll break down the key 
concepts, the landmark cases, 

13
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:37,520
and most importantly, how to 
apply all this to those tricky 

14
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:40,840
hypothetical scenarios that 
professors and bar examiners 

15
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:43,600
love to throw at you. 
OK, so let's kick things off 

16
00:00:43,600 --> 00:00:46,400
with something that's probably 
on everybody's mind technology 

17
00:00:46,400 --> 00:00:48,880
and privacy. 
The 4th Amendment says we have a

18
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:51,080
right to be free from 
unreasonable searches and 

19
00:00:51,080 --> 00:00:53,880
seizures, but what does that 
even mean in the digital age? 

20
00:00:54,080 --> 00:00:56,480
Like what happens when our 
entire lives are basically 

21
00:00:56,480 --> 00:00:58,680
online? 
It's a great question, and 

22
00:00:58,680 --> 00:01:00,480
courts are grappling with this 
constantly. 

23
00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:04,720
The starting point is Katz V 
United States, which gave us the

24
00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:07,080
reasonable expectation of 
privacy tests, right? 

25
00:01:07,640 --> 00:01:10,920
But technology has moved so much
faster than the law, so the 

26
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:14,000
courts have been playing catch 
up, trying to apply these old 

27
00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:17,040
ideas to new situations. 
Think about United States V 

28
00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:18,360
Jones. 
That was a big one. 

29
00:01:18,920 --> 00:01:21,520
It dealt with GPS tracking 
without a warrant. 

30
00:01:21,760 --> 00:01:24,720
Oh yeah, I remember that one. 
And the court said, hey, this is

31
00:01:24,720 --> 00:01:26,680
a problem. 
You can't just track people's 

32
00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:30,200
movements 24/7 without some kind
of legal justification. 

33
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:32,360
It's like Big Brother is 
watching us everywhere we go. 

34
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:34,520
Exactly. 
And then you have Carpenter V 

35
00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:37,240
United States. 
This case was about cell site 

36
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:40,360
location data. 
So like the records your phone 

37
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:42,560
company keeps about where your 
phone has been, right? 

38
00:01:42,600 --> 00:01:45,560
And the court said, hold on, 
this data is really revealing. 

39
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:48,800
It paints a detailed picture of 
someone's life and even if it's 

40
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:51,400
in a company's hands, the 
government still needs a warrant

41
00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:53,720
to get it. 
OK, so for all of you future 

42
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:56,760
lawyers out there, the big 
takeaways this digital data 

43
00:01:56,760 --> 00:01:59,760
isn't just up for grabs. 
Right, the 4th Amendment is 

44
00:01:59,760 --> 00:02:02,920
still in play, but the analysis 
is getting more and more 

45
00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:05,360
complicated as technology keeps 
changing. 

46
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:08,320
You have to think about whether 
the government's actions in 

47
00:02:08,320 --> 00:02:11,440
getting that data would be 
considered a search under the 

48
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:14,720
Constitution. 
Did the person have a reasonable

49
00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:17,440
expectation of privacy in that 
information? 

50
00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:20,960
Were there any exceptions to the
warrant requirement, you know, 

51
00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:24,080
things like consent or maybe an 
emergency situation? 

52
00:02:24,160 --> 00:02:26,280
Got it. 
So the 4th amendment is still 

53
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,760
relevant, but the rules of the 
game are changing. 

54
00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:32,480
They are definitely changing. 
What about data that's collected

55
00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:35,640
by like, private companies? 
Does the 4th Amendment apply 

56
00:02:35,640 --> 00:02:37,240
there? 
I mean, we're constantly giving 

57
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:40,440
data to companies just by using 
apps and browsing the web. 

58
00:02:40,920 --> 00:02:42,080
Right. 
And that's where things get a 

59
00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:45,040
little tricky because the 4th 
Amendment generally only applies

60
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:47,680
to government action, right? 
But there's this concept called 

61
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:50,640
state action that can sometimes 
blur the lines. 

62
00:02:50,640 --> 00:02:53,840
Remind me about state action. 
It's basically the idea that 

63
00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:57,080
sometimes a private company can 
act so closely with the 

64
00:02:57,080 --> 00:03:00,120
government that they basically 
become an arm of the state. 

65
00:03:00,280 --> 00:03:04,080
So imagine a situation where the
FBI asks Twitter to suspend an 

66
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:07,080
account without a warrant 
because they think that account 

67
00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:10,920
is spreading misinformation. 
That's a situation where the 4th

68
00:03:10,920 --> 00:03:14,200
Amendment might actually apply 
because you have a private 

69
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:16,040
company acting on behalf of the 
government. 

70
00:03:16,640 --> 00:03:19,000
Interesting. 
So for exam purposes, we need to

71
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:22,360
look out for those situations 
where private companies might be

72
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:24,040
acting as agents of the 
government. 

73
00:03:24,040 --> 00:03:25,720
Exactly. 
And this is just scratching the 

74
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:28,560
surface when it comes to 
technology and privacy. 

75
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:31,800
Think about things like facial 
recognition technology, border 

76
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:34,080
searches of devices, the 
Internet of Things. 

77
00:03:34,080 --> 00:03:36,080
Oh yeah, there are so many new 
challenges. 

78
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:38,800
All of these are areas where the
law is still developing, and you

79
00:03:38,800 --> 00:03:40,760
can bet they'll be showing up on
exams. 

80
00:03:40,760 --> 00:03:41,640
Yeah. 
For sure. 

81
00:03:41,680 --> 00:03:44,560
So buckle up, future lawyers, 
because the Constitution of the 

82
00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:46,840
digital age is going to keep us 
all on our toes. 

83
00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,560
OK, let's shift gears a bit and 
talk about another hot topic, 

84
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:53,080
campaign finance. 
Always a good one. 

85
00:03:53,080 --> 00:03:56,200
Campaign finance is like this 
constant battle between money 

86
00:03:56,480 --> 00:03:59,520
and free speech, right? 
We want to protect political 

87
00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:04,040
speech, but we also don't want 
elections to just become these 

88
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:06,560
auctions where the highest 
bidder always wins. 

89
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:10,040
So where do we even begin to 
untangle this mess? 

90
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:12,440
Well, the case that really set 
the foundation for all of this 

91
00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:15,080
is Buckley V Vallejo. 
OK Buckley V Vallejo. 

92
00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,079
I remember studying that one it.
Gave us the framework for how 

93
00:04:18,079 --> 00:04:20,680
the court balances these 
competing interests of free 

94
00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:23,600
speech and fair elections. 
And the big take away from 

95
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:25,920
Buckley is that there's a 
crucial distinction between 

96
00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:29,200
contribution limits how much 
money you can give directly to a

97
00:04:29,200 --> 00:04:32,120
candidate, and expenditure 
limits how much money can be 

98
00:04:32,120 --> 00:04:34,400
spent overall. 
Why is that distinction so 

99
00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:36,240
important? 
It seems like both of those 

100
00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:37,760
things would influence an 
election. 

101
00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:41,040
The court applies different 
levels of scrutiny to each type 

102
00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:43,840
of limit. 
Contribution limits get easier 

103
00:04:43,840 --> 00:04:46,680
scrutiny because the court sees 
them as a way to prevent what's 

104
00:04:46,680 --> 00:04:49,240
called quid pro quo corruption 
quid. 

105
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:52,560
It's like bribery, buying 
political favors, basically. 

106
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:55,000
And that's a pretty serious 
concern. 

107
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:57,640
So the government has more 
leeway to regulate 

108
00:04:57,720 --> 00:04:59,480
contributions. 
OK, that makes sense. 

109
00:04:59,600 --> 00:05:01,160
What about expenditure limits 
then? 

110
00:05:01,280 --> 00:05:05,000
Those face a much stricter level
of scrutiny because they 

111
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:08,560
directly limit how much 
political speech can happen and 

112
00:05:08,560 --> 00:05:11,880
the court is super protective of
free speech, so any attempt to 

113
00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:15,240
limit it, even in the context of
elections, is going to be looked

114
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:17,520
at very carefully. 
So the government can more 

115
00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:20,920
easily regulate how much money 
goes directly to a candidate, 

116
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:24,600
but it's much harder to regulate
the total amount spent on a 

117
00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:26,040
campaign. 
Exactly. 

118
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:28,560
And of course, we can't talk 
about campaign finance without 

119
00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:31,000
mentioning the elephant in the 
room, Citizens United. 

120
00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:35,920
Yes, Citizens United VFEC. 
That case was a total game 

121
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:37,920
changer. 
I remember that one too. 

122
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:41,120
The court said corporations and 
unions have the same First 

123
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:43,440
Amendment rights as individuals 
when it comes to making 

124
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:45,840
independent expenditures on 
political communication. 

125
00:05:45,840 --> 00:05:47,840
Wow. 
So they can spend unlimited 

126
00:05:47,840 --> 00:05:51,360
amounts of money to support or 
oppose candidates, as long as 

127
00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:53,560
they aren't coordinating 
directly with the campaigns. 

128
00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:56,920
So basically, Citizens United 
opened the door for super pigs. 

129
00:05:57,000 --> 00:05:59,440
Right, those political 
committees that can raise and 

130
00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:02,680
spend insane amounts of money. 
And that raises all sorts of 

131
00:06:02,680 --> 00:06:06,280
questions about the influence of
wealthy donors on our elections.

132
00:06:06,520 --> 00:06:10,720
Absolutely, but from a purely 
legal perspective, the key take 

133
00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:14,880
away for exam purposes is this. 
If you see a situation where the

134
00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:17,520
government is trying to limit 
political spending based on 

135
00:06:17,520 --> 00:06:21,080
what's being said, it's almost 
always going to be subject to 

136
00:06:21,080 --> 00:06:24,800
that highest level of strict 
scrutiny, and the government has

137
00:06:24,800 --> 00:06:27,560
a really high bar to clear if 
they want to justify that kind 

138
00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:28,960
of restriction. 
OK. 

139
00:06:28,960 --> 00:06:32,480
So strict scrutiny for content 
based restrictions on spending. 

140
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:35,200
What about things like 
disclosure requirements? 

141
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:37,880
You know, making campaigns 
reveal who's funding those 

142
00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:39,760
political ads. 
That's another important piece 

143
00:06:39,760 --> 00:06:41,640
of the puzzle. 
Disclosure requirements 

144
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:43,400
generally get a thumbs up from 
the courts. 

145
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:45,600
Why? 
They promote transparency and 

146
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:48,560
help voters make informed 
choices without directly 

147
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:50,400
limiting speech itself. 
Makes sense. 

148
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:54,280
So if you're prepping for the 
bar exam, campaign finance is an

149
00:06:54,280 --> 00:06:56,160
area where you need to 
understand those different 

150
00:06:56,160 --> 00:06:58,680
levels of scrutiny, the 
insurance and outs of Buckley 

151
00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:00,960
and the impact of Citizens 
United. 

152
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:03,200
Absolutely. 
And don't forget about how all 

153
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:05,200
of these rules apply to the 
digital world. 

154
00:07:05,200 --> 00:07:08,200
Right, like online political ads
and social media campaigns. 

155
00:07:08,240 --> 00:07:10,840
They're raising all sorts of new
questions about how to regulate 

156
00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:14,640
money in politics. 
It's a constantly evolving area 

157
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:17,080
of the law. 
OK, so we've got technology 

158
00:07:17,360 --> 00:07:21,000
changing the game for the 4th 
Amendment and for campaign 

159
00:07:21,000 --> 00:07:23,680
finance as well. 
It's like the Constitution is 

160
00:07:23,680 --> 00:07:26,800
always being put to the test in 
new and unexpected ways. 

161
00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:29,440
All right, let's move on to 
something a little less 

162
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:32,000
politically charged. 
How about commercial speech? 

163
00:07:32,640 --> 00:07:35,680
All right, commercial speech, 
advertising, marketing, all the 

164
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:38,200
stuff that fills our inboxes and
social media feeds. 

165
00:07:38,600 --> 00:07:40,640
But believe it or not, the 
Constitution has something to 

166
00:07:40,640 --> 00:07:43,640
say about this too. 
So the First Amendment protects 

167
00:07:43,640 --> 00:07:47,080
free speech, but how does that 
apply to companies trying to 

168
00:07:47,080 --> 00:07:49,160
sell us stuff? 
Good question. 

169
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:51,800
You're right that freedom of 
speech isn't just about 

170
00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:54,680
political opinions. 
It also covers speech that's 

171
00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:58,120
related to commerce. 
But commercial speech doesn't 

172
00:07:58,120 --> 00:08:01,080
get quite the same level of 
protection as political speech. 

173
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:03,120
Why is that? 
Because the government also has 

174
00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:06,320
a legitimate interest in 
protecting consumers from false 

175
00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:09,040
or misleading advertising. 
So there's this balancing act 

176
00:08:09,040 --> 00:08:09,840
that has to. 
Happen right? 

177
00:08:09,880 --> 00:08:12,880
I can see that. 
And the big test we use to 

178
00:08:12,880 --> 00:08:15,200
figure out if a regulation of 
commercial speech is 

179
00:08:15,200 --> 00:08:18,760
constitutional comes from a case
called Central Hudson Gas and 

180
00:08:18,760 --> 00:08:21,000
Electric Core V Public Service 
Commission. 

181
00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:24,000
Central Hudson. 
OK, I remember that name. 

182
00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:28,320
It's basically a four part test.
It's like a check. 1st, the 

183
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:30,960
speech has to be about something
that's legal and it can't be 

184
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:33,520
misleading. 
Second, the government has to 

185
00:08:33,520 --> 00:08:36,679
have a really good reason for 
regulating the speech, a 

186
00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:40,080
substantial interest. 
Third, the regulation actually 

187
00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:42,760
has to be effective in achieving
that purpose. 

188
00:08:42,760 --> 00:08:44,800
OK. 
And finally, the regulation 

189
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:47,400
can't be overkill. 
It has to be as narrow as 

190
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:49,400
possible while still getting the
job done. 

191
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:52,560
So it's like a sliding scale. 
The more questionable the 

192
00:08:52,560 --> 00:08:55,560
advertising is, the more power 
the government has to regulate 

193
00:08:55,560 --> 00:08:56,640
it. 
That's a good way to think 

194
00:08:56,720 --> 00:08:58,040
about. 
It So let's say a company is 

195
00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:01,000
making false claims about a 
weight loss supplement that 

196
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:02,560
could actually hurt people. 
Right. 

197
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:05,440
In that case, the government 
would have a much easier time 

198
00:09:05,440 --> 00:09:08,480
justifying a regulation than if 
they were trying to restrict 

199
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:11,560
advertising for a new brand of 
organic coffee socks that are 

200
00:09:11,560 --> 00:09:14,040
perfectly harmless. 
Right, that makes sense. 

201
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:17,320
Yeah, But this whole commercial 
speech thing gets even more 

202
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:19,120
complicated in the digital age, 
right? 

203
00:09:19,520 --> 00:09:21,680
We're not just talking about 
billboards and TV commercials 

204
00:09:21,680 --> 00:09:22,600
anymore. 
Exactly. 

205
00:09:22,600 --> 00:09:26,640
We're talking about targeted 
ads, influencers, algorithms 

206
00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:29,000
that seem to know us better than
we know ourselves. 

207
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:31,200
It's a whole new ball game. 
It really is. 

208
00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:35,600
So how do you even apply these 
old First Amendment principles 

209
00:09:35,600 --> 00:09:39,040
to this constantly evolving 
digital landscape? 

210
00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:41,680
That's the challenge the courts 
are facing right now. 

211
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:45,640
Think about an influencer on 
social media making misleading 

212
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:48,440
claims about a product. 
How do you regulate that? 

213
00:09:48,720 --> 00:09:51,880
Or what about those targeted ads
that use our personal data in 

214
00:09:51,880 --> 00:09:54,920
ways that might be deceptive or 
even discriminatory? 

215
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:57,560
These are all questions that are
being debated right now. 

216
00:09:57,560 --> 00:09:58,760
It's. 
Like the Constitution is trying 

217
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:01,520
to catch up with technology. 
It is, and it's what makes this 

218
00:10:01,520 --> 00:10:04,000
area of law so dynamic and 
interesting. 

219
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:06,120
But for those of you studying 
for exams, it means you have to 

220
00:10:06,120 --> 00:10:07,680
be ready for anything. 
Yeah. 

221
00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:09,280
You really have to think on your
feet. 

222
00:10:09,400 --> 00:10:12,800
OK, so we've talked about 
outright bans on certain types 

223
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:14,840
of advertising. 
What are some other ways the 

224
00:10:14,840 --> 00:10:16,800
government can regulate 
commercial speech? 

225
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:19,640
Good question. 
They can require businesses to 

226
00:10:19,640 --> 00:10:22,280
make certain disclosures, even 
if those businesses would rather

227
00:10:22,280 --> 00:10:24,760
not. 
Like calorie counts on menus, 

228
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:27,040
warning labels on cigarette. 
Packs exactly. 

229
00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:29,840
So they're not banning the 
product or service, but they're 

230
00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:33,120
forcing companies to give 
consumers more information. 

231
00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:37,080
Right. 
And the key case here is Zodr V 

232
00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:41,000
Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 
The court basically said that as

233
00:10:41,000 --> 00:10:43,760
long as the government is 
requiring the disclosure of 

234
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:48,000
factual, uncontroversial 
information, and the purpose is 

235
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:52,440
to prevent consumers from being 
misled, then it's generally OK. 

236
00:10:52,680 --> 00:10:55,080
But if it starts to feel like 
the government is forcing 

237
00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:58,800
businesses to express a certain 
viewpoint, then that might cross

238
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:00,480
the line into First Amendment 
territory. 

239
00:11:00,880 --> 00:11:02,560
Got it. 
So there's a line between 

240
00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:06,960
providing useful information to 
consumers and turning businesses

241
00:11:06,960 --> 00:11:09,240
into mouthpieces for the 
government, And that line can 

242
00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:11,640
get pretty blurry sometimes. 
Absolutely, especially with all 

243
00:11:11,640 --> 00:11:13,640
the complex products and 
services we have today. 

244
00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:15,760
All right. 
So for exam purposes, remember 

245
00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:18,960
as Otterer and think about how 
it might be applied to a 

246
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:22,200
hypothetical scenario involving 
compelled disclosures. 

247
00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:25,560
Good advice. 
So to sum it up, commercial 

248
00:11:25,560 --> 00:11:29,520
speech gets some First Amendment
protection, but not as much as 

249
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:32,240
political speech. 
We've got the Central Hudson 

250
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:35,120
test for regulations and 
Zotterer for compelled 

251
00:11:35,120 --> 00:11:38,400
disclosures, but both of these 
are being reinterpreted and 

252
00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:41,200
applied in new ways in the 
digital age. 

253
00:11:41,240 --> 00:11:43,400
Got it. 
All right, let's step into the 

254
00:11:43,400 --> 00:11:45,840
Oval Office for a bit now and 
talk about executive power. 

255
00:11:46,800 --> 00:11:49,840
This is where things can get 
really interesting because when 

256
00:11:49,840 --> 00:11:52,600
we talk about presidents pushing
the boundaries of their power, 

257
00:11:53,000 --> 00:11:56,080
things can get pretty heated. 
Yeah, the Constitution laid out 

258
00:11:56,080 --> 00:11:59,480
a framework, but it seems like 
every president finds new and 

259
00:11:59,480 --> 00:12:01,400
creative ways to test those 
limits. 

260
00:12:01,400 --> 00:12:03,160
It's true. 
From executive orders to 

261
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:06,000
administrative agencies to 
claims of national security, 

262
00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:08,240
there's this constant tug of war
going on. 

263
00:12:08,240 --> 00:12:10,200
Absolutely. 
So how do we make sense of all 

264
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:11,680
this? 
How do we know when a president 

265
00:12:11,680 --> 00:12:13,840
has gone too far? 
Well, whenever you have a 

266
00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:16,200
question about executive power, 
the case you need to have in 

267
00:12:16,200 --> 00:12:19,280
your back pocket is Youngstown 
sheet and tube Covey Sawyer. 

268
00:12:19,320 --> 00:12:21,640
Youngstown. 
Youngstown, OK, I think I 

269
00:12:21,640 --> 00:12:24,200
remember that one. 
This case gives us a framework 

270
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:27,560
for analyzing presidential 
actions and figuring turning out

271
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:29,960
if they're actually within the 
scope of the president's 

272
00:12:29,960 --> 00:12:32,360
constitutional authority. 
So it's like a road map for 

273
00:12:32,360 --> 00:12:34,760
understanding executive power. 
Exactly. 

274
00:12:34,760 --> 00:12:37,440
Remember, President Truman tried
to take over the steel mills 

275
00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:40,040
during the Korean War. 
Oh yeah, that's the steel 

276
00:12:40,040 --> 00:12:41,200
seizure case, right? 
Right. 

277
00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:44,240
And the Supreme Court said Nope,
Not so fast, Mr. President. 

278
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:47,560
They essentially laid out this 
map of presidential power, 

279
00:12:47,560 --> 00:12:49,960
dividing it into 3 zones. 3 
zones. 

280
00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:52,640
OK, I'm listening. 
In the first zone, the president

281
00:12:52,640 --> 00:12:55,840
is acting with the approval of 
Congress, either directly or 

282
00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:58,320
indirectly. 
That's where presidential power 

283
00:12:58,320 --> 00:13:01,120
is at its strongest. 
So if Congress is on board, the 

284
00:13:01,120 --> 00:13:03,160
president has a lot more leeway.
Right. 

285
00:13:03,960 --> 00:13:05,320
What about the other zones? 
Yeah. 

286
00:13:05,560 --> 00:13:07,760
What about those? 
In the second zone, things get 

287
00:13:07,760 --> 00:13:10,480
murkier. 
Congress hasn't specifically 

288
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:13,720
said yes to what the president 
is doing, but they haven't said 

289
00:13:13,720 --> 00:13:15,960
no either. 
This is where a lot of those 

290
00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:17,760
presidential power struggles 
play out. 

291
00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:21,640
And then you have the third zone
where the president is acting 

292
00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:25,360
against what Congress wants. 
And here presidential power is 

293
00:13:25,360 --> 00:13:28,960
at its weakest, and the courts 
are much more likely to step in 

294
00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:30,600
and say, hold up, you can't do 
that. 

295
00:13:30,600 --> 00:13:33,560
So it all depends on where the 
president's actions fall on that

296
00:13:33,560 --> 00:13:35,040
Youngstown map. 
Right. 

297
00:13:35,400 --> 00:13:38,160
And that framework is still 
being used today to analyze all 

298
00:13:38,160 --> 00:13:40,000
sorts of modern presidential 
actions. 

299
00:13:40,000 --> 00:13:42,640
So everything from immigration 
policy to environmental 

300
00:13:42,640 --> 00:13:45,960
regulations to national security
decisions are being seen through

301
00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:47,840
the lens of Youngstown. 
Exactly. 

302
00:13:48,080 --> 00:13:50,600
And think about all those news 
stories we see about executive 

303
00:13:50,600 --> 00:13:52,720
orders and arguments about 
executive privilege. 

304
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:55,040
They're all examples of 
Youngstown in action. 

305
00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:58,720
Wow, so even though this case is
from the 1950s, it's still super

306
00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:00,320
relevant today. 
Absolutely. 

307
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:03,040
The principles in Youngstown are
really enduring and they're 

308
00:14:03,040 --> 00:14:05,720
still shaping the way we think 
about the balance of power 

309
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:07,480
between the president and 
Congress. 

310
00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:09,880
OK. 
So we've got this Youngstown 

311
00:14:09,880 --> 00:14:13,600
framework for analyzing 
presidential power, but let's 

312
00:14:13,600 --> 00:14:17,560
zoom in on one specific aspect 
of executive power that's always

313
00:14:17,560 --> 00:14:22,760
in the news Executive privilege.
Yes, the idea that the president

314
00:14:22,760 --> 00:14:25,800
can keep certain conversations 
confidential, right? 

315
00:14:26,040 --> 00:14:28,400
But how far does that privilege 
actually extend? 

316
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:32,560
Can presidents just use it to 
avoid answering tough questions 

317
00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:35,400
or to cover up things they don't
want people to know about? 

318
00:14:35,760 --> 00:14:38,720
That's the big question. 
The idea behind executive 

319
00:14:38,720 --> 00:14:41,560
privilege is that the president 
needs to be able to have frank 

320
00:14:41,560 --> 00:14:44,800
and confidential conversations 
with their advisors without 

321
00:14:44,800 --> 00:14:46,760
worrying that those 
conversations will become 

322
00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:50,200
public. 
It's seen as essential to how 

323
00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:53,200
the executive branch functions, 
but the courts have recognized 

324
00:14:53,200 --> 00:14:55,640
that it's not absolute. 
It has to be balanced against 

325
00:14:55,640 --> 00:14:59,040
other important interests, like 
the need for transparency and 

326
00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:01,480
accountability. 
So a president can't just claim 

327
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:03,160
executive privilege whenever 
they want. 

328
00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:04,440
Right. 
And when those competing 

329
00:15:04,440 --> 00:15:06,480
interests have to be weighed, 
things can get really 

330
00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:09,560
complicated. 
Speaking of complicated, what 

331
00:15:09,560 --> 00:15:11,120
about the state secrets 
doctrine? 

332
00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:14,680
That's where the government can 
basically withhold information 

333
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:17,720
in court if they say it would 
harm national security. 

334
00:15:17,720 --> 00:15:19,280
Rome. 
That's exactly right. 

335
00:15:19,400 --> 00:15:21,040
It's a powerful tool, sounds 
like it. 

336
00:15:21,120 --> 00:15:24,280
And it can be used in a lot of 
different cases, from terrorism 

337
00:15:24,280 --> 00:15:27,400
prosecutions to lawsuits that 
are challenging government 

338
00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,320
surveillance programs. 
But it's not a blank check for 

339
00:15:30,320 --> 00:15:32,520
secrecy. 
So the government can't just say

340
00:15:32,520 --> 00:15:34,840
state secrets and avoid any kind
of scrutiny. 

341
00:15:34,960 --> 00:15:37,360
Exactly. 
The courts have to carefully 

342
00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:40,520
balance the need for secrecy 
with the public's right to know 

343
00:15:40,840 --> 00:15:43,480
and the need for open and fair 
judicial proceedings. 

344
00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:46,560
It's like walking a tightrope. 
It is, and it often involves 

345
00:15:46,560 --> 00:15:49,240
really high stakes and some 
intense legal battles. 

346
00:15:49,240 --> 00:15:53,160
OK, so Executive privilege and 
the State Seekers Doctrine are 

347
00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:56,240
both powerful tools, but they 
both have limits. 

348
00:15:56,760 --> 00:15:59,800
And for anyone prepping for 
exams, it's really important to 

349
00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:02,680
understand those limits and how 
the courts deal with these kinds

350
00:16:02,680 --> 00:16:04,200
of claims. 
I couldn't agree more. 

351
00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:07,680
All right, so how about we head 
over to what I'd like to call 

352
00:16:07,680 --> 00:16:11,920
the Wild West of emerging 
constitutional issues? 

353
00:16:12,760 --> 00:16:15,600
This is where things get really 
fascinating because we're 

354
00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:18,000
talking about how the 
Constitution is being applied to

355
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:21,560
these brand new challenges that 
the framers couldn't have even 

356
00:16:21,560 --> 00:16:23,240
imagined. 
I love it. 

357
00:16:23,240 --> 00:16:25,880
Let's go Buckle up, everybody, 
because we're about to enter 

358
00:16:25,880 --> 00:16:28,720
uncharted territory. 
OK, so we're in the Wild West 

359
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:32,080
now where the Constitution is 
meeting the 21st century head 

360
00:16:32,080 --> 00:16:34,320
on. 
What are some of the hot button 

361
00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:36,840
issues we see in this uncharted 
territory? 

362
00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:39,480
Let's start with something 
that's constantly evolving 

363
00:16:39,480 --> 00:16:42,520
digital rights. 
We touched on privacy a bit 

364
00:16:42,560 --> 00:16:45,920
earlier, but this is about the 
bigger picture, free speech 

365
00:16:45,920 --> 00:16:49,400
online, the power of these huge 
social media companies and how 

366
00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:51,840
much the government can actually
regulate all of this. 

367
00:16:52,040 --> 00:16:54,200
It's almost like trying to fit 
the Constitution, which was 

368
00:16:54,200 --> 00:16:57,000
written on parchment paper, you 
know, into a smartphone. 

369
00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,000
Right. 
And the key here is that social 

370
00:16:59,000 --> 00:17:01,960
media companies, despite their 
huge influence, are private 

371
00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:04,480
entities, right? 
So they're not directly bound by

372
00:17:04,480 --> 00:17:06,520
the 1st Amendment in the same 
way that the government is. 

373
00:17:06,520 --> 00:17:09,119
So could they theoretically just
censor whatever they want? 

374
00:17:09,319 --> 00:17:12,599
To a certain extent, yes. 
But the government can't just 

375
00:17:12,599 --> 00:17:15,920
step in and tell these platforms
what they can and cannot allow. 

376
00:17:16,319 --> 00:17:19,440
It would run into some serious 
First Amendment problems. 

377
00:17:19,800 --> 00:17:22,160
This is tricky Gray area. 
It is. 

378
00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:25,119
So what are some of the 
arguments that are being made to

379
00:17:25,119 --> 00:17:27,920
navigate this digital Wild West?
Yeah. 

380
00:17:28,040 --> 00:17:30,520
What are some of the legal tools
that are being used? 

381
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:34,680
One approach is to look for 
those state action situations 

382
00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:37,640
that we talked about earlier. 
If the government is pressuring 

383
00:17:37,640 --> 00:17:41,080
social media companies to remove
certain types of content, that 

384
00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:43,040
might trigger First Amendment 
scrutiny. 

385
00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:46,280
So it's like the government 
can't do indirectly what it 

386
00:17:46,280 --> 00:17:48,520
can't do directly. 
They can't just order a company 

387
00:17:48,520 --> 00:17:50,120
to censor someone on their 
behalf. 

388
00:17:50,120 --> 00:17:52,480
Exactly. 
There are also arguments that 

389
00:17:52,480 --> 00:17:55,800
these platforms are so important
for public discourse, the modern

390
00:17:55,800 --> 00:17:58,280
day public square, that they 
should be treated like public 

391
00:17:58,280 --> 00:18:01,600
forums, and that would mean 
they'd be subject to much 

392
00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:04,440
stricter First Amendment rules 
limiting their ability to 

393
00:18:04,440 --> 00:18:07,320
restrict speech. 
It's amazing how these old First

394
00:18:07,320 --> 00:18:10,000
Amendment principles are being 
stretched and adapted to this 

395
00:18:10,000 --> 00:18:12,800
whole new world. 
So for exam purposes, we need to

396
00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:15,520
be thinking about the public 
forum, doctrine, state action 

397
00:18:15,880 --> 00:18:18,000
and how they apply to online 
platforms. 

398
00:18:18,080 --> 00:18:20,280
Absolutely. 
And don't forget about the 14th 

399
00:18:20,280 --> 00:18:22,520
Amendment and the Doorman 
Commerce Clause, right? 

400
00:18:22,520 --> 00:18:25,080
Those can also come into play 
when you're dealing with things 

401
00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:28,560
like content moderation and data
privacy. 

402
00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:32,560
OK, so digital rights are a 
hotbed of constitutional 

403
00:18:32,560 --> 00:18:35,200
activity. 
What's another area where we're 

404
00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:38,480
seeing the Constitution trying 
to deal with modern day 

405
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:40,760
challenges? 
How about environmental 

406
00:18:40,760 --> 00:18:42,920
regulation? 
This is where things get really 

407
00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:46,080
heated between federal power and
states rights, especially when 

408
00:18:46,080 --> 00:18:48,680
we talk about climate change. 
Yeah, I can see how that would 

409
00:18:48,680 --> 00:18:50,720
be a big one. 
Climate change is a global 

410
00:18:50,720 --> 00:18:52,560
issue, so the government wants 
to regulate it. 

411
00:18:52,880 --> 00:18:54,840
But where does it even get that 
power? 

412
00:18:55,160 --> 00:18:57,440
The main tool that the federal 
government uses for 

413
00:18:57,440 --> 00:18:59,720
Environmental Protection is the 
commerce. 

414
00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:01,040
Clause. 
The Commerce Clause. 

415
00:19:01,080 --> 00:19:05,080
The idea is that pollution 
crosses state lines, impacting 

416
00:19:05,080 --> 00:19:09,160
Interstate commerce, and that 
gives Congress the power to step

417
00:19:09,160 --> 00:19:11,040
in. 
So it's not actually about the 

418
00:19:11,040 --> 00:19:14,840
environment itself, it's about 
how it affects commerce. 

419
00:19:15,400 --> 00:19:17,600
Right. 
But it's definitely not that 

420
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:19,560
simple. 
There are limits to how far the 

421
00:19:19,560 --> 00:19:22,920
Commerce Clause can go, and the 
Supreme Court has been pretty 

422
00:19:22,920 --> 00:19:25,200
clear about that. 
Can you give me an example of 

423
00:19:25,200 --> 00:19:28,840
that push back? 
Think about Massachusetts V EPA.

424
00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:31,440
Massachusetts V EPA. 
The court said that the EPA 

425
00:19:31,440 --> 00:19:35,040
could regulate greenhouse gases 
under the Clean Air Act because 

426
00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:38,280
they are pollutants. 
But then you have cases like 

427
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:41,040
West Virginia VEPA. 
OK, West Virginia VEPA. 

428
00:19:41,040 --> 00:19:43,560
This one really shows the limits
of federal power. 

429
00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:46,960
In that case, the court said the
EPA overstepped its bounds when 

430
00:19:46,960 --> 00:19:49,760
it tried to regulate greenhouse 
gas emissions from power plants.

431
00:19:49,760 --> 00:19:52,080
Interesting. 
The court said Congress hadn't 

432
00:19:52,080 --> 00:19:55,200
given the agency specific enough
instructions to do that. 

433
00:19:55,680 --> 00:19:58,560
They called this the major 
questions doctrine. 

434
00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:02,720
For really big important issues,
agencies need a clear mandate 

435
00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:05,280
from Congress. 
So it's a constant tug of war 

436
00:20:05,280 --> 00:20:07,360
over how much power the federal 
government actually has. 

437
00:20:07,360 --> 00:20:10,480
And the courts are kind of like 
the referees in all of this. 

438
00:20:10,480 --> 00:20:12,720
That's a good analogy. 
What other legal issues come up 

439
00:20:12,720 --> 00:20:14,680
in this area? 
Keep an eye out for things like 

440
00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:16,840
standing, standing. 
You know who has the right to 

441
00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:19,040
sue over environmental harm, 
right? 

442
00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:22,000
There are also procedural 
questions about what kind of 

443
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:25,320
scientific evidence is needed to
justify those regulations. 

444
00:20:25,720 --> 00:20:27,680
And of course, there's always 
that ongoing debate about the 

445
00:20:27,680 --> 00:20:29,720
role of cost benefit analysis. 
Right. 

446
00:20:29,800 --> 00:20:33,640
It sounds like this is where 
science and law and politics all

447
00:20:33,640 --> 00:20:36,760
crash together. 
They do, and for exam purposes 

448
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:39,400
you need to be prepared to 
analyze how those different 

449
00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:42,200
worlds intersect. 
Think about cases like West 

450
00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:46,280
Virginia VEPA and how that major
questions doctrine is being 

451
00:20:46,280 --> 00:20:48,680
used. 
Also pay attention to those 

452
00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:51,400
different arguments about the 
Commerce Clause and the limits 

453
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:53,040
of federal power. 
OK. 

454
00:20:53,040 --> 00:20:55,560
So we've got digital rights and 
we've got environmental 

455
00:20:55,560 --> 00:20:56,560
regulation. 
Yeah. 

456
00:20:57,000 --> 00:21:00,120
What about those fundamental 
rights that we always talk about

457
00:21:00,120 --> 00:21:02,720
in constitutional law? 
Are those being challenged in 

458
00:21:02,720 --> 00:21:04,600
new ways as well? 
Absolutely. 

459
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:06,920
Think about healthcare rights. 
Healthcare Rights. 

460
00:21:06,920 --> 00:21:09,280
This is where things get really 
personal and sometimes 

461
00:21:09,280 --> 00:21:12,200
controversial, especially when 
you bring in the Affordable Care

462
00:21:12,200 --> 00:21:15,000
Act and those big debates about 
what role the government should 

463
00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:18,200
play in healthcare. 
Oh yeah, the ACA always a hot 

464
00:21:18,200 --> 00:21:19,080
topic. 
Yeah. 

465
00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:21,800
What are some of the 
constitutional issues that come 

466
00:21:21,800 --> 00:21:24,800
up in this area? 
Well, the ACA itself has been 

467
00:21:24,800 --> 00:21:27,520
challenged in court more times 
than you can count. 

468
00:21:27,800 --> 00:21:30,640
Wow. 
Remember NFIBV Sibelius? 

469
00:21:30,640 --> 00:21:33,280
NFIBV Sibelius. 
That was the case where the 

470
00:21:33,280 --> 00:21:35,320
Supreme Court upheld the 
individual mandate. 

471
00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:38,680
Oh yeah, the requirement that 
most people have health 

472
00:21:38,680 --> 00:21:39,800
insurance. 
Exactly. 

473
00:21:39,800 --> 00:21:42,960
It was a huge case. 
How did the court justify that 

474
00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:43,720
decision? 
Yeah. 

475
00:21:43,720 --> 00:21:45,960
How did they do that? 
It all came down to the question

476
00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:48,240
of what power Congress was 
using. 

477
00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:51,400
The court said that Congress 
couldn't force people to buy 

478
00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,400
health insurance under the 
Commerce Clause, but they could 

479
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:57,720
use their taxing power to 
essentially penalize people for 

480
00:21:57,720 --> 00:21:59,920
not having insurance. 
So it wasn't about whether 

481
00:21:59,920 --> 00:22:02,320
Congress could regulate it, it 
was about how they were trying 

482
00:22:02,320 --> 00:22:03,480
to do. 
It exactly. 

483
00:22:03,760 --> 00:22:07,200
And beyond the ACA itself, there
are a ton of constitutional 

484
00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:10,000
questions about the government's
power to regulate healthcare, 

485
00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:13,560
everything from reproductive 
rights to end of life care. 

486
00:22:13,560 --> 00:22:16,120
And this is where the 14th 
Amendment and the idea of 

487
00:22:16,120 --> 00:22:18,880
substantive due process come in.
Right. 

488
00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:23,600
It's the idea that there are 
certain fundamental rights, even

489
00:22:23,600 --> 00:22:26,240
if they aren't explicitly listed
in the Constitution, that the 

490
00:22:26,240 --> 00:22:29,640
government can't infringe on. 
Substantive due process is a 

491
00:22:29,640 --> 00:22:32,160
powerful idea, but it's also 
really controversial. 

492
00:22:32,800 --> 00:22:35,960
And the case that really shook 
things up here is Dobbs V 

493
00:22:35,960 --> 00:22:37,760
Jackson Women's Health 
Organization. 

494
00:22:37,760 --> 00:22:39,440
Yeah. 
Dobbs was a game changer. 

495
00:22:39,440 --> 00:22:43,000
It overturned Roe V Wade and 
really sent shockwaves through 

496
00:22:43,000 --> 00:22:45,120
the legal world. 
Yeah, but it wasn't just about 

497
00:22:45,120 --> 00:22:46,760
abortion, right? 
Absolutely. 

498
00:22:47,280 --> 00:22:50,600
The Court's reasoning in Dobbs, 
particularly that focus on 

499
00:22:50,600 --> 00:22:54,000
whether a right is deeply rooted
in this nation's history and 

500
00:22:54,000 --> 00:22:57,160
tradition, could have a huge 
impact on other rights that are 

501
00:22:57,160 --> 00:23:00,240
based on substantive due 
process, like the right to 

502
00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:02,600
contraception or same sex 
marriage. 

503
00:23:02,640 --> 00:23:05,040
So it's like the court is 
raising the bar for what counts 

504
00:23:05,040 --> 00:23:07,160
as a fundamental right. 
That's one way to look at it, 

505
00:23:07,160 --> 00:23:09,360
and it's definitely something 
law students need to be paying 

506
00:23:09,360 --> 00:23:11,560
attention to. 
It could have a ripple effect on

507
00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:13,400
lots of areas of constitutional 
law. 

508
00:23:13,720 --> 00:23:16,040
What are some other examples of 
how healthcare rights are 

509
00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:19,040
playing out in the courts today?
Well, there are ongoing battles 

510
00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:23,160
over the scope of the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, 

511
00:23:23,240 --> 00:23:24,840
and how it applies to 
healthcare. 

512
00:23:25,240 --> 00:23:28,040
We've seen cases where 
businesses have said they have a

513
00:23:28,040 --> 00:23:31,800
religious objection to providing
contraceptive coverage to their 

514
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:32,800
employees. 
Right. 

515
00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:35,600
So it's a conflict between 
religious freedom and the right 

516
00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:38,320
to access healthcare. 
How do the courts handle those 

517
00:23:38,320 --> 00:23:40,760
situations? 
It's a really delicate balancing

518
00:23:40,760 --> 00:23:42,520
act. 
There are strong arguments on 

519
00:23:42,520 --> 00:23:44,680
both sides. 
The courts have to weigh the 

520
00:23:44,680 --> 00:23:47,200
sincerity of the religious 
belief against the harm that 

521
00:23:47,200 --> 00:23:49,360
might be caused by denying 
someone healthcare. 

522
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:51,960
It's a really complex area of 
the law. 

523
00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:54,720
Sounds like it. 
So yeah, healthcare rights are 

524
00:23:54,720 --> 00:23:57,880
going to be a major battleground
for constitutional law in the 

525
00:23:57,880 --> 00:23:59,960
years to come. 
We're seeing clashes over 

526
00:23:59,960 --> 00:24:03,560
federal power, the meaning of 
fundamental rights and religious

527
00:24:03,560 --> 00:24:05,600
freedom. 
It's a lot to keep up with. 

528
00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:09,320
It is, but understanding those 
key cases, the constitutional 

529
00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:11,720
principles, and the different 
arguments that are being made 

530
00:24:11,920 --> 00:24:14,440
will definitely help you analyze
those healthcare rights 

531
00:24:14,440 --> 00:24:16,200
scenarios that you'll see on 
exams. 

532
00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:18,400
For sure. 
OK, So we've covered a lot of 

533
00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:21,040
ground today. 
We've explored digital rights, 

534
00:24:21,040 --> 00:24:24,240
navigated environmental 
regulation and jumped into those

535
00:24:24,240 --> 00:24:26,440
really heated debates about 
health care rights. 

536
00:24:27,080 --> 00:24:30,040
It's clear that the Constitution
is always being tested in light 

537
00:24:30,040 --> 00:24:32,080
of all these new challenges. 
It is. 

538
00:24:32,120 --> 00:24:35,720
It's amazing to see how this 
document, written centuries ago 

539
00:24:36,040 --> 00:24:38,840
is still relevant and can be 
applied to all these cutting 

540
00:24:38,840 --> 00:24:41,720
edge issues. 
It truly is a living document, 

541
00:24:41,720 --> 00:24:43,320
always evolving. 
It is. 

542
00:24:43,520 --> 00:24:46,160
And one of the biggest things 
shaping constitutional law right

543
00:24:46,160 --> 00:24:49,560
now is definitely technology. 
We talked about privacy and 

544
00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:52,040
digital rights, but it goes even
deeper than that. 

545
00:24:52,040 --> 00:24:54,760
Technology is changing how we 
communicate, how we get 

546
00:24:54,760 --> 00:24:57,480
information, and even how we 
think about our rights as 

547
00:24:57,480 --> 00:24:59,480
citizens. 
It's like technology is making 

548
00:24:59,480 --> 00:25:01,800
us rethink what the Constitution
even means. 

549
00:25:01,880 --> 00:25:04,120
Exactly. 
Think about the 1st amendment 

550
00:25:04,120 --> 00:25:05,840
and free speech. 
It was written when people 

551
00:25:05,840 --> 00:25:08,120
mainly communicated through 
pamphlets and town hall 

552
00:25:08,120 --> 00:25:12,000
meetings, but now we have social
media with billions of users, 

553
00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:15,360
algorithms controlling what we 
see, and the potential for 

554
00:25:15,360 --> 00:25:17,640
misinformation to spread 
incredibly fast. 

555
00:25:17,640 --> 00:25:18,880
It's a whole different ball 
game. 

556
00:25:18,880 --> 00:25:21,040
And it seems like the courts are
having a hard time keeping up. 

557
00:25:21,280 --> 00:25:22,760
They are. 
They're trying to apply these 

558
00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:26,040
old rules to these brand new 
situations and it's not easy. 

559
00:25:26,040 --> 00:25:28,560
So many answered questions. 
Right, like how do you balance 

560
00:25:28,560 --> 00:25:32,240
free speech with preventing 
harmful content online? 

561
00:25:32,720 --> 00:25:36,280
What role should the government 
have in regulating social media?

562
00:25:36,520 --> 00:25:39,280
These are questions that are 
going to be debated for years to

563
00:25:39,280 --> 00:25:41,960
come. 
So anyone studying for exams, 

564
00:25:42,480 --> 00:25:45,080
this is where you really have to
think critically and use your 

565
00:25:45,080 --> 00:25:47,240
imagination. 
Don't just memorize the old 

566
00:25:47,240 --> 00:25:50,720
rules, think about how they 
might apply in these new 

567
00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:52,360
situations. 
Absolutely. 

568
00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:55,960
And technology isn't the only 
force reshaping constitutional 

569
00:25:55,960 --> 00:25:58,000
law. 
We've also got the rise of the 

570
00:25:58,000 --> 00:26:00,320
administrative state. 
We talked about this a bit 

571
00:26:00,320 --> 00:26:03,440
earlier with executive power, 
but let's dive a little deeper. 

572
00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:06,600
Administrative agencies have 
become so powerful, haven't 

573
00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:07,440
they? 
They have. 

574
00:26:07,440 --> 00:26:10,320
They're making rules and 
regulations that affect pretty 

575
00:26:10,320 --> 00:26:13,280
much every aspect of our lives. 
And the courts are having to 

576
00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:16,000
figure out how to make sure 
those agencies stay within their

577
00:26:16,000 --> 00:26:18,200
limits, right? 
We talked about the Youngstown 

578
00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:21,360
framework and those different 
zones of presidential power, but

579
00:26:21,360 --> 00:26:24,640
a lot of the action is actually 
happening within those agencies 

580
00:26:24,640 --> 00:26:27,840
themselves where they're 
interpreting laws and putting 

581
00:26:27,840 --> 00:26:30,360
those policies into practice. 
And that raises some big 

582
00:26:30,360 --> 00:26:33,160
questions about who's really 
accountable and the balance of 

583
00:26:33,160 --> 00:26:36,360
power in our government. 
Exactly who gets to decide what 

584
00:26:36,360 --> 00:26:39,840
a law actually means? 
How much deference should courts

585
00:26:39,840 --> 00:26:42,080
give to those agencies 
interpretations? 

586
00:26:42,840 --> 00:26:45,520
These are some of the biggest 
questions in constitutional law 

587
00:26:45,520 --> 00:26:47,480
right now. 
Take a whole new layer of 

588
00:26:47,480 --> 00:26:49,160
complexity on top of our 
government. 

589
00:26:49,200 --> 00:26:51,960
It is, and it's something law 
students really need to 

590
00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:54,120
understand. 
The traditional ideas about 

591
00:26:54,120 --> 00:26:57,120
separation of powers are still 
important, but they're being 

592
00:26:57,120 --> 00:27:00,720
applied in these new ways to 
deal with the challenges of this

593
00:27:00,720 --> 00:27:04,400
modern administrative state. 
So we have technology and this 

594
00:27:04,400 --> 00:27:08,120
huge administrative state. 
What else should we be watching 

595
00:27:08,120 --> 00:27:10,480
out for? 
We definitely can't ignore the 

596
00:27:10,480 --> 00:27:14,480
trend toward originalism and 
that emphasis on history and 

597
00:27:14,480 --> 00:27:17,320
tradition and how we interpret 
the Constitution. 

598
00:27:17,320 --> 00:27:19,840
Like we saw in Dobbs where the 
court said there was no right to

599
00:27:19,840 --> 00:27:21,720
abortion because it wasn't 
rooted in history. 

600
00:27:21,880 --> 00:27:25,120
Exactly this approach to 
interpreting the Constitution is

601
00:27:25,120 --> 00:27:27,840
gaining ground among judges and 
legal scholars. 

602
00:27:27,960 --> 00:27:31,320
So history is back in style. 
It is, and it's something every 

603
00:27:31,320 --> 00:27:34,480
law student needs to know about.
These debates about interpreting

604
00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:37,440
the Constitution have been going
on forever, and the role of 

605
00:27:37,440 --> 00:27:39,560
history and tradition is a key 
part of that. 

606
00:27:39,920 --> 00:27:41,200
OK. 
So we've got technology, the 

607
00:27:41,200 --> 00:27:44,440
administrative state, and this 
focus on history. 

608
00:27:45,080 --> 00:27:47,360
It's a lot. 
Any advice for those of us who 

609
00:27:47,360 --> 00:27:49,600
are feeling a little overwhelmed
by all of this? 

610
00:27:49,680 --> 00:27:53,680
First of all, don't panic. 
Constitutional law is complex, 

611
00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:56,960
but it's also super fascinating.
The best way to approach it is 

612
00:27:56,960 --> 00:27:58,760
to break it down into smaller 
pieces. 

613
00:27:58,960 --> 00:28:02,400
Focus on understanding those key
concepts, the big cases and the 

614
00:28:02,400 --> 00:28:03,840
different arguments that are 
being made. 

615
00:28:03,920 --> 00:28:06,360
And don't forget to practice 
applying all of that to real 

616
00:28:06,360 --> 00:28:08,680
world problems. 
That's the best way to get ready

617
00:28:08,680 --> 00:28:10,560
for exams and for your career as
a lawyer. 

618
00:28:10,600 --> 00:28:13,120
Absolutely. 
Constitutional law is not just 

619
00:28:13,120 --> 00:28:16,000
some theory, it has real 
consequences that impact 

620
00:28:16,000 --> 00:28:18,320
people's lives. 
It's easy to get lost in all the

621
00:28:18,320 --> 00:28:20,920
legal stuff, but at the end of 
the day we're dealing with 

622
00:28:20,920 --> 00:28:23,320
things that really affect people
and communities. 

623
00:28:23,600 --> 00:28:26,680
Right. 
And as future lawyers, you have 

624
00:28:26,680 --> 00:28:29,560
a responsibility to use your 
knowledge of constitutional law 

625
00:28:29,560 --> 00:28:31,160
to fight for justice and 
fairness. 

626
00:28:31,640 --> 00:28:34,080
Whether you're working in 
government, in a law firm or at 

627
00:28:34,080 --> 00:28:37,120
a nonprofit, you can make a 
difference by protecting 

628
00:28:37,120 --> 00:28:39,720
people's rights and making sure 
the Constitution is being 

629
00:28:39,720 --> 00:28:41,880
followed. 
That's an inspiring way to think

630
00:28:41,880 --> 00:28:44,520
about it. 
It is So constitutional law is a

631
00:28:44,520 --> 00:28:47,320
dynamic and challenging field 
that's always changing. 

632
00:28:48,080 --> 00:28:52,000
To succeed, you need to be 
adaptable, think critically, and

633
00:28:52,000 --> 00:28:53,800
be aware of what's shaping the 
law. 

634
00:28:54,200 --> 00:28:55,800
And don't forget to stay 
curious. 

635
00:28:55,800 --> 00:28:58,480
Constitutional law is full of 
surprises, and the more you 

636
00:28:58,480 --> 00:29:00,200
learn, the more interesting it 
gets. 

637
00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:01,960
Absolutely. 
Well, everyone, we've reached 

638
00:29:01,960 --> 00:29:05,160
the end of our deep dive into 
modern constitutional issues. 

639
00:29:05,760 --> 00:29:08,800
I hope you learned something new
today and you feel a little more

640
00:29:08,800 --> 00:29:10,720
ready to tackle those exam 
questions. 

641
00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:13,200
And remember, this is just the 
start of your journey into 

642
00:29:13,200 --> 00:29:15,880
constitutional law. 
There's always more to discover.

643
00:29:16,040 --> 00:29:19,200
That's right. 
So keep studying, keep asking 

644
00:29:19,200 --> 00:29:21,640
questions, and keep fighting to 
make a difference. 

645
00:29:22,000 --> 00:29:25,040
The future of constitutional law
is in your hands. 

646
00:29:25,280 --> 00:29:27,080
And on that note, we'll sign off
for now. 

647
00:29:27,240 --> 00:29:29,520
Until next time, keep diving 
deep, yeah?