Nicholas Wapshott's book examines the vastly divergent economic philosophies of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. Messrs. Keynes and Hayek studied the normal course of the capitalist business cycle, especially after World War I, but reached radically different opinions about the role governments should play in regulating and ameliorating the effects of the business cycle. These two gentlemen, two of the most influential economic thinkers of the 20th Century, participated in on-going debates about the respective merits of their own philosophies and the demerits of the other's philosophies. Mr. Wapshott examines these debates and expounds on them in this podcast. Featuring Mr. Nicholas Wapshott, Author of Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and the Baltimore Lawyers Chapter.

This podcast features a discussion and commentary by our panel of experts on the recent federal district court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded Teleforum conference call, the experts provide analysis of the case and the impact of the decision, followed by questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Nancy Abudu of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator.

Policies on felon enfranchisement vary from state to state with most states restricting felons from voting to varying degrees. Among other issues, our experts discuss the history of felon disenfranchisement laws and whether such laws violate the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Nancy Abudu of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator.

Arizona v. United Statesraises several cutting edge questions about federal preemption of state laws. These questions derive from Arizona’s “mirror image theory” of the case. That is, Arizona argues that its statutes are a mirror image of federal statutes, and therefore that no preemption problem exists. In arguing against that theory, the federal government has voiced what has been unflatteringly called “preemption by executive whim.” That is, that preemption can be created by federal executive branch enforcement (or, non-enforcement) priorities that essentially ignore enforcement of the statutes being mirrored. What do those competing claims mean in preemption analysis where, traditionally, courts have looked to the law as written/established, rather than as enforced? This panel was featured at the Sixth Annual Western Conference on January 28, 2012. Featuring Prof. Gabriel “Jack” Chin of UC Davis School of Law; Prof. John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law; Mr. Joe Sciarrotta, General Counsel to Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona; Prof. Margaret Stock of Lane owell LLC; and The Honorable Edwin Meese of The Heritage Foundation as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of The Federalist Society.