Cato Event Podcast

Between January and March 2015, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to over 80 countries. Although many of these deployments focused on training exercises or advisory roles, it is an astounding measure of the scope of the U.S. military's involvement around the world. U.S. forces are engaged in active conflict in at least 6 countries, ranging from the well-known (Iraq; Afghanistan) to the largely invisible (Somalia; Yemen).The public often seems blissfully unaware of America's wars, reflecting a blurring of the line between war and peace. The ubiquity of the "Global War on Terror," the emergence of non-state actors, and technological advances have contributed to a situation in which the United States is involved in a range of conflicts around the world, most of which are invisible to the people who pay for them.What is the nature and scope of America's involvement in these conflicts? Does lack of public awareness impact U.S. national security debates? And does U.S. involvement actually serve U.S. interests? Join our panelists for a discussion of these questions in the context of three "invisible" wars: Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Two years ago, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations implementing Obamacare’s “preventive care” mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for certain closely held corporations. Employers with religious objections to some of the contraceptives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required them to cover had to be exempt from that regulation. They thus joined churches and their “auxiliaries,” which HHS had exempted from the contraceptive mandate after public outrage at the scope of the initial regulation. But what about nonprofits that HHS considered insufficiently religious to merit exemption? Religious schools, charities, and the like were instead offered an “accommodation”: These employers had to give the government information about their insurers and sign forms allowing their health plan to provide contraceptives. The only justification for this differential treatment was that employees of organizations that aren’t houses of worship are less likely to share their employer’s faith. In other words, HHS refused to exempt people who work for groups like Little Sisters of the Poor — a group of nuns who vow obedience to the Pope! — because they’re less committed to a religious mission. Thus the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether the contraceptive mandate and its “accommodation” violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest. Please join us for a discussion of all the issues these cases raise, including what to look for at oral argument the following week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

American public schools often censor controversial student speech that the Constitution protects. Lessons in Censorship brings clarity to a bewildering array of court rulings that define the speech rights of young citizens in the school setting. Ross examines disputes that have erupted in our schools and courts over the civil rights movement; war and peace; rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT); abortion; immigration; evangelical proselytizing; and the Confederate flag. She argues that the failure of schools to respect civil liberties betrays their educational mission and threatens democracy.From the 1940s through the Warren years, the Supreme Court celebrated free expression and emphasized the role of schools in cultivating liberty. But the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts retreated from that vision, curtailing certain categories of student speech in the name of order and authority. Drawing on hundreds of lower court decisions, Ross shows how some judges either misunderstand the law or decline to rein in censorship that is clearly unconstitutional, and she powerfully demonstrates the continuing vitality of the Supreme Court's initial affirmation of students' expressive rights.Lessons in Censorship was named the best book of 2015 on the First Amendment by Concurring Opinions (First Amendment News 91). More reviews of the work may be found at catherinejrosslawprof.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Less than 18 months ago, a cover story for the New York Times Magazine asked, “Has the ‘libertarian moment’ finally arrived?” From public suspicion of the surveillance state, to increasing tolerance for marijuana legalization, to marriage equality, to weariness with war—the article argued that after years of intellectual work, “for perhaps the first time,” libertarianism has “genuine political momentum on its side.” However, the Rand Paul presidential campaign failed to catch fire. The two breakout candidates of the presidential campaign have been a socialist and an authoritarian. The idea of tolerance seems increasingly quaint, as Mexicans and Muslims have become the target of public frustrations. And the public seems to have forgotten its weariness with war, as the Islamic State continues its brutal terrorism. Was all this talk of the libertarian moment simply wishful thinking? Or was the libertarian moment never about politics in the first place? Join David Boaz, Matt Welch, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Conor Friedersdorf for a wide-ranging conversation on the future of libertarianism. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Four years ago, in Sackett v. EPA (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the EPA's effort to deny judicial review of its determination that a rural lot where an Idaho couple was building their home was a federal wetland. The Army Corps of Engineers makes tens of thousands of similar wetlands determinations each year under the Clean Water Act (CWA), but it claims that Sackett doesn't apply because these determinations are legally different from the EPA's orders. On March 30, the Supreme Court will hear argument in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. to decide whether landowners have access to court to challenge agency rulings that their property contains wetlands that are subject to federal regulation. While 30 states are now suing to overturn the newest CWA rule expanding power over "waters of the United States," invalidating that rule won't change existing federal control over individual landowners if the agencies continue to assert similarly overbroad authority. What recourse do landowners have when federal agencies decide that private property contains wetlands? According to the Obama administration, landowners first must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years seeking a permit from the same officials who may not have the proper regulatory authority to begin with. The Supreme Court rejected that approach in Sackett. A win for Hawkes here would provide much broader relief from abusive agency rulings and procedures. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Libertarians and conservatives held high hopes for a return to limited, constitutional government and fiscal responsibility with the arrival of the Tea Party movement in 2008 and 2009. Today, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are making credible runs for the White House. What happened? Was the commitment to Founding Era principles weakly held, after all? Join us on March 10th at 4 p.m. for a discussion about what, exactly, happened to the Tea Party.Ask your questions to the panel using the hashtag #CatoConnects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dramatic improvements in robotics, artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing (3D printing), and nanoenergetics are dramatically changing the character of global conflicts. The convergence of these new and improving technologies increases the capabilities available to smaller and smaller political entities—extending even to the individual. In a new Cato Policy Analysis author T. X. Hammes explores these developments and ponders their impact on U.S. national security. How should policymakers and military planners take these changes into account as they consider future policies? And in what ways do the convergence of technologies and the proliferation of new military capabilities challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding how to fight—and even whether to fight? The author will present his findings, followed by comments and questions from our distinguished panelists. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since Milton Friedman, school choice proponents have argued that vouchers and other private choice programs would improve student performance, and nearly every “gold-standard” study has found they do – until now. Recent studies of Louisiana’s voucher program have found that it actually reduced students’ performance on standardized tests. Why? In this forum top experts will discuss several possible reasons for this, including the role of various regulations, and will debate what the body of research says about how to design choice policies. We hope you’ll join us for this crucial conversation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Drug trafficking is one of the most resilient and lucrative industries in the world, with estimated revenues of $300 billion a year. Despite the tens of billions of dollars that governments spend every year trying to disrupt them, drug cartels have shown tremendous ingenuity, adaptability, and entrepreneurship to satisfy over a quarter billion customers worldwide. Tom Wainwright will use insights from classical economics and modern business theory to explain how drug cartels work, why they're thriving, and how the illicit business could be defeated by the laws of economics—that is, by recognizing the futility of prohibition. Moisés Naím will relate the book’s insights to current hemispheric affairs. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In an effort to combat the Great Recession, the Federal Reserve embarked on an unprecedented program of quantitative easing (QE) — the large-scale purchase of financial assets using freshly created money. The idea was to lower interest rates, encourage spending and investment, and thereby boost growth and jobs. By late 2014, the Fed had added more than $3.5 trillion to its books — effectively quintupling the size of its balance sheet. But did it work? Did QE boost growth and jobs? Did it save the American economy from the abyss? Or did it merely sow the seeds of the next crisis? Join us as our expert panel debates one of the defining monetary policy issues of our time — the legacy of QE. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.