Professors discuss the war in Gaza, free speech on university campuses, democracy promotion in illiberal countries, disqualification clause for the 4th Amendment, American currency bills, and the debate over ethics codes for the Supreme Court.
The podcast discussed the question of whether the government can tax unrealized appreciation and its potential implications for federal taxing power.
The effectiveness of democracy promotion was questioned, highlighting how it may lead to worse regimes in underdeveloped countries.
The disqualification clause under the 14th Amendment and its potential application to Donald Trump's eligibility for the 2024 ballot were explored, emphasizing the high threshold required by the clause.
Deep dives
Taxing Unrealized Appreciation
The case at hand revolves around the question of whether the government can tax unrealized appreciation, that is, the increase in value of an asset that has not been sold. The implication is whether a realizable event, such as a sale, is required for taxation. The government takes a modest position, arguing that the general rule is that money in a partnership is taxable even if there is a legal dispute preventing its distribution. This position aligns with established cases from the 1930s.
The Amicus Brief
In this case, Richard Epstein and John Yoo filed an amicus brief presenting their arguments. While it is not explicitly mentioned, Richard's part of the brief is not entirely clear. However, it should be noted that the government's position does not propose any substantial change to existing law.
Implications for Taxing Power
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the federal government's taxing power. If the court rules in favor of taxing unrealized appreciation without a realizable event, it would allow for the taxation of potential value rather than realized gains. This could have far-reaching consequences for taxpayers and could potentially expand the government's ability to tax assets and investments.
Questioning the Effectiveness of Democracy Promotion
The speaker questions the effectiveness of democracy promotion, noting that in some cases, democratic elections have led to worse regimes. The example of the election in Gaza resulting in Hamas' victory is mentioned. The speaker argues that democracy works best when there is a certain minimum level of material stability and wealth, as seen in places like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Conversely, in underdeveloped countries with high poverty rates, democracy can invite instability.
Analyzing the Disqualification Clause and the Trump Ballot Issue
The speaker discusses the disqualification clause under the 14th Amendment and its potential application to Donald Trump's eligibility for the 2024 ballot. The argument is made that the clause does not apply to the president, focusing on the text's mention of senators, representatives, and electors but no mention of the president. The speaker also emphasizes the high threshold of insurrection or rebellion required by the clause. The discussion extends to the broader issue of constitutional interpretation and the limits of Congress in regulating the courts.
It’s a jam-packed session in the faculty lounge as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo go around the horn for a comprehensive look at the issues of the day: What does “international law” mean in the context of the war in Gaza? Should student activists be punished for their support of Hamas? Will the Supreme Court rule on whether Donald Trump can be on the 2024 ballot? What upcoming SCOTUS case inspired the first (non-podcast) Epstein and Yoo collaboration? And should the Supreme Court knuckle under to pressure to adopt a code of ethics? All that, plus we debate the finer points of ancient latin and do a quick tour of archaic American currency.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
