March 3, 2023
James Wilson and the Nature of Law
Prof. Jonathan Gienapp explains how Wilson's integrated view of law grounds the harmony of law and philosophy that he argued for in the Constitution's ratification debates.
February 24, 2023
James Wilson and "We the People"
Prof. John Mikhail describes the unique role of James Wilson among the Founders as both moral philosopher and legal scholar who shaped our Constitution and our concept of who "We the People" are in the United States.
February 10, 2023
Is Conservative Jurisprudence Renouncing Moral Reasoning?
Prof. Arkes argues that moral judgments, rather than belonging to legislators instead of judges, are an essential - indeed inescapable - part of the work of a judge, especially in recognizing the most basic facts that bear on their judgments.
February 3, 2023
In Search of Original Meaning -- the Religion Clauses: Part II
In Part II, Assistant Editor Ted Hirt concludes with an evaluation of Phillip Munoz's understanding of the Constitution's religious clauses.
January 27, 2023
In Search of Original Meaning – the Religion Clauses: Part I
Anchoring Truths Assistant Editor Ted Hirt reviews Philip Muñoz's book, "Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment." This first of two pieces analyzes the work the Muñoz has done to outline the foundations of our Religious Liberty.
January 18, 2023
Born-Alive Act Redux!
Prof. Arkes reflects on his work crafting the Born Alive Act and takes some time to analyze the latest version of the Act, to him the best ever.
December 20, 2022
Anchoring Truths Year End Book Recommendations
Podcasts
March 10, 2023
Chevron Deference, Conservatism's Pivot, and Scalia's Mantle
Garrett Snedeker and Prof. Jesse Merriam sit down with Daniel Osborne to discuss their reviews of Prof. Thomas Merrill's recent book, The Chevron Doctrine: Its Rise and Fall and the Future of the Administrative State. They demonstrate the pivot in the Conservative Legal Movement that once promoted Chevron Deference among judges and now openly opposes the decision as a mistake, diving into some of the reasons behind this shift over the past decade.
