Showing 4 Publications by Seth Weinberger

A way out of the war in Ukraine?

Popular Media Responding to the Ukrainian offensive that has liberated Kharkiv and thousands of square miles of territory previously occupied by Russia, Vladimir Putin has taken steps recently that, . . .

Responding to the Ukrainian offensive that has liberated Kharkiv and thousands of square miles of territory previously occupied by Russia, Vladimir Putin has taken steps recently that, to many observers, reek of desperation. While his actions may indeed be desperate, it is likely a mistake to see them as an effort to reverse Russia’s sagging fortunes on the battlefield. Instead, Putin’s recent moves may be a signal to Ukraine—and the rest of the world—of a potential end to the conflict.

Read the full piece here.

Continue reading

Trust the Process: How the National Emergency Act Threatens Marginalized Populations and the Constitution—And What to Do About It

Scholarship When Congress expands executive power for purposes of protecting the nation against an emergency—whether real or imagined—that power is often turned against vulnerable, marginalized populations that are easily scapegoated as threats to the state.

On February 15, 2019, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 9844 pursuant to the National Emergencies Act of 19761 (NEA), declaring a “National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States.” On February 27, the House of Representatives voted 245–182 to overturn the declaration of national emergency; on March 14, the Senate agreed with the House in a 59–41 vote. The following day, the President vetoed the joint resolution. Neither house of Congress was able to override the veto and so, more than a year later, the emergency remains in place.

The border wall emergency declared by President Trump has awakened strident opposition in Congress, which is a historical anomaly. And yet, although virtually none of the previous declarations engendered the vehement outcry that accompanied the border wall emergency declaration, they were substantially different only in scope, not in kind. Including Trump’s border wall emergency declaration and four subsequent emergency declarations, Presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have declared a total of 57 emergencies under the NEA. Thirty-four of these are still active. And all but four of them could hardly be called emergencies. Even without the partisan political context of the border wall dispute, any of these should have been sufficient to raise the question of whether and how to rein in presidential power.

Continue reading
Data Security & Privacy

Time to Rehabilitate the Legislative Veto: How Congress Should Rein in Presidents’ “National Emergency” Powers

Popular Media Last week we learned that the Senate has likely scraped together the four votes needed to join the House in passing a joint resolution to . . .

Last week we learned that the Senate has likely scraped together the four votes needed to join the House in passing a joint resolution to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S. border with Mexico. The House passed its resolution with the votes of just 13 Republican members, all of them joining the Democratic majority over the vigorous efforts of Republican House leaders to prevent any defections. It is a virtual certainty that Congress will be unable to muster the two-thirds majorities in both houses required to override the president’s promised veto of the measure.

Read the full piece here.

Continue reading

International Signals: The Political Dimension of International Competition Law Harmonization

Scholarship The article, written jointly by a law professor and political science professor, endeavors to explain why the United States is particularly resistant to various efforts at international harmonization of antitrust law.

Although many states have advocated for the internationalization of antitrust laws, the United States has resisted a multilateral solution. We place the conflict over antitrust laws within the larger framework of international relations and draw out some novel implications of the debate by connecting the harmonization of international economic laws with the promotion of international peace and security. The harmonization of global antitrust laws is imbued with a political dimension that confers political benefits on the United States.

By crafting institutions in which other parties must alter their domestic political structures, the United States receives a credible commitment from other states of their willingness to bear the domestic costs of adherence to the specific agreement under negotiation, helping the United States identify potential allies. Separating budding friends from probable foes is a critical task of international security, and the United States derives political benefits from international agreements in a way that transcends the substance of the agreements themselves.

Read the full paper here.

Continue reading
Antitrust & Consumer Protection