Stanford Legal

Stanford’s Allen Weiner examines how the U.S. war with Iran raises questions about the president’s power to wage war and negotiate peace.

---

The American war with Iran began with ambitious goals, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and potentially bringing about regime change. But the conflict may well be leading to a very different outcome, according to Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner, a scholar of international and human rights law and former State Department lawyer. Just prior to the recent collapse of the tenuous cease fire, Weiner joined podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the conflict is arguably strengthening Iran’s most repressive factions while putting economic and diplomatic pressure on the United States.

Weiner traces how the conflict grew out of the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, asks whether the new agreement with Iran amounts to a weaker version of that accord, and considers how ceasefires and shifting legal rationales have allowed the administration to sidestep Congress and keep the War Powers clock from running out. 

Allen Weiner  >>> Stanford Law School Page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Chapters

00:00:00 Introduction 

00:02:09 Back to the JCPOA—The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal 

00:04:23 From "worst deal ever" to a weaker one 

00:04:51 Two rounds of strikes 

00:07:11 Regime change that wasn't 

00:08:40 The Strait of Hormuz and the global economy 

00:09:49 Emboldened by Venezuela 

00:11:33 Israel in, NATO out 

00:12:27 The new MOU 

00:14:31 Israel left off the page 

00:17:38 Free transit, for now 

00:19:06 Treaty or political commitment? 

00:21:36 The War Powers loophole 

00:24:26 Can Congress actually enforce the War Powers Act? 

00:28:12 Conclusion 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“Two competing originalist instincts”

In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution alongside Eugene Volokh, the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford), and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus (and Distinguished Research Professor) at UCLA School of Law.

Barnett and Volokh share respect for the Declaration’s importance but diverge on what that importance does in law. Barnett sees the Declaration as the “ground and foundation of future government,” supplying binding premises about “just powers” and limiting even broad state “police power” claims that risk subverting rights. Volokh counters that the Declaration resembles a political platform and persuasive rhetoric—valuable for context and values, but too general and historically contingent to function as enforceable law without tethering to more specific legal texts.

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Chapters

[00:00:26] Chapter 1: Framing Question: Is the Declaration “law” if courts can’t directly enforce it?

Host Michael McConnell opens by contrasting Justice Barrett and Justice Scalia’s view—Declaration as ideals, not law—with Randy Barnett’s claim that the Declaration functions as foundational law shaping constitutional meaning.

[00:01:54] Chapter 2: Setting the Stage: Why Barnett and Volokh, and why this debate now?

McConnell introduces Barnett and Volokh, highlighting their originalist and civil-libertarian influence and teeing up the central question: “Is the Declaration our law?”

[00:06:11] Chapter 3: Barnett’s Case-in-Chief: How did Salmon P. Chase use the Declaration as law in anti-slavery litigation?

Barnett argues the Declaration supplied a liberty baseline in 19th-century practice—especially in the Matilda and Van Zandt cases—supporting “clear statement” rules and strict construction against liberty-restricting interpretations.

[00:37:38] Chapter 4: Volokh’s Challenge: What is the Declaration—and what isn’t it?

Volokh contends the Declaration is best understood as a political platform/announcement with legal significance as an independence claim, but not as governing law; it can guide interpretation mainly when reinforced by constitutional provisions like the Ninth Amendment.

[00:56:04] Chapter 5: Barnett’s Rebuttal: Can the Declaration shape doctrine without giving judges a blank check?

Barnett responds that “law” is broader than judicially enforceable rules, arguing the Declaration legitimately informs burdens of justification and doctrines (due process meaning, presumptions of liberty vs. constitutionality) while remaining constrained by legal method and natural-rights theory.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn’t just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law.

Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson’s phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration’s ideals can translate into concrete protections today.

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Chapters:

[00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell’s framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters

The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection.

[00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick’s thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions

Bolick argues the Declaration’s influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution.

[00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia’s 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories”

Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.

[00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases)

Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes.

[00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford’s recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame

Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode reframes the Declaration of Independence as more than soaring ideals about equality and natural rights. Former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar argues the text contains an underappreciated architecture of government: accountability to citizens, managing political conflict across regions, and establishing legitimate authority both domestically and in the international order. The result is a Declaration that reads like a nation-building document designed to make a new state workable after revolution.

Responding to Cuéllar, Larry Kramer—former Stanford Law dean, a leading scholar of democratic constitutionalism, and now president of the London School of Economics—adds a grounding historical frame: in 1776, the Declaration was shaped as much by law as by philosophy. Kramer argues the grievances were understood as claims that Britain had violated the colonies’ constitutional rights under the British customary constitution, which helps explain why the Declaration’s “structural” ideas are often implicit rather than spelled out as a blueprint.

Together, Cuéllar and Kramer show how the Declaration operates in two registers: a practical indictment of governmental failure and a foundational text later generations repeatedly reinterpret to justify (or resist) evolving structures of American governance. Their exchange highlights a central tension that persists—between universal promises and the administrative choices that determine how, and for whom, those promises are implemented.

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Chapters:

[00:00:26] Chapter 1 — Framing question: Is the Declaration also a “blueprint for government”?

Host Michael McConnell sets up the episode’s core premise and introduces guests Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar and Larry Kramer to explore the Declaration’s structural dimensions.

[00:05:21] Chapter 2 — Cuéllar’s thesis: “Text vs. territory” and the Declaration as state-building

Cuéllar argues the Declaration is not just a creed; it catalogs governance failures under George III and implies the need for a sovereign that can function at home and abroad.

[00:06:04] Chapter 3 — The Freedom Train as a case study in ideals meeting administration (1947–48)

Using the racially integrated Freedom Train—and its refusal to stop in segregated cities—Cuéllar spotlights the friction between universal principles and on-the-ground governance.

[00:13:07] Chapter 4 — 1890–1950: expansion of the administrative state and contested equality

Cuéllar walks through key moments (Du Bois/Niagara Movement, Wilson at Independence Hall, Becker vs. Coolidge, FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights,” Ho Chi Minh quoting Jefferson) to show how the Declaration structures recurring fights over equality, borders, and state capacity.

[00:28:51] Chapter 5 — Kramer’s response: the Declaration’s legal-constitutional origins and how texts evolve

Kramer argues the Declaration was fundamentally a legal brief grounded in the British customary constitution; its grievances alleged constitutional violations, and later generations repurpose founding texts to frame new disputes.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stanford’s Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved.

---

The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil.

The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide.

Links:

Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.