Turley Speaks at Villanova on the Supreme Court and the Constitution

I have the honor of speaking today at Villanova University in Philadelphia as part of their Constitutional Day celebrations. I will be speaking on the recent Supreme Court cases, including the affirmative action decision.

The emergence of a stable conservative majority has led to key decisions in areas long characterized by conflicted and plurality decisions. This term already has a number of major potential decisions to continue to build on that foundation in areas including gun rights, free speech, the Chevron Doctrine, and even the constitutional viability of the wealth tax.

It is always a pleasure to visit Villanova, which is one of our most unique academic institutions. It was founded by two Irish Augustinian friars in 1796 from Saint Augustine’s Church in Philadelphia. It is only one of two Augustinian institutions of higher learning in the United States with Merrimack College. It claims the title as the oldest Catholic University in Pennsylvania.

Villanova University’s Matthew J. Ryan Center for the Study of Free Institutions and the Public Good is the sponsor of today’s event. It is committed to civil and tolerant debate. I look forward to discussing these constitutional questions with the faculty and students today at Villanova University.

52 thoughts on “Turley Speaks at Villanova on the Supreme Court and the Constitution”

  1. It’s a good thing that Professor Turley was invited to speak at Villanova University. Had someone tried to also invite him to speak at the University of Pennsylvania, he would have been disinvited in accordance with the mandates set by the student body because of his “controversial” position on the First Amendment. (He’s for it.)

    Here’s a nice video of the lovely Villanova campus:

  2. Haitian illegal alien invaders, subsequent and in addition to the invading forces from Mexico, Central, South America the Middle East and Asia, are reinforcing Lincoln’s 3-million-illegal-alien-man standing army from 1865 as we speak.

    Obama will complete his “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America…” and be declared King.

    God Bless America.

  3. It seems to me that Biden should be impeached because he is not upholding the laws of a the land passed by Congress which he swore to uphold when he took office….eg ,The American borders.

    1. Agreed. See Mark Levin’s commentary from his Life, Liberty and Levin show from Sunday October 1st.

  4. We are fighting a lost battle. When Trump sneezes, the leftist media pounces. When our enemies pour unearned millions into the Bidenoza Crime Syndicate, they conjure defenses not found in any law books.

    Our judiciary is sold to the highest bidder. Do not ask to see the private and protected “random” selection gizmo that chooses judges for cases without regard to sweet deals arranged in chambers between our criminals donning black dresses and their cohorts who act ethically, but merely pretend to honor “The Law.”

    All is quiet as America sinks into oblivion, the greatest, steepest collapse of any democracy in all recorded history. They laughed at, mocked, cut asunder and otherwise murdered the prophets of old who tried to point to the upcoming devastation. Only this time, WMD will detonate and a million billion Krakatoa’s will explode simultaneously and life itself will disappear. We are fighting a lost battle. When Trump sneezes, the leftist media pounces. When our enemies pour unearned millions into the Bidenoza Crime Syndicate, they conjure defenses not found in any law books.

    1. They laughed at, mocked, cut asunder and otherwise murdered the prophets of old who tried to point to the upcoming devastation.

      True. The prophets of old also stated those who turned to God, their sender, would be saved. The Old Testament prophets were bombastic but also provided hope for those who amended their ways. So it follows, take care of you, your family, friends, loved ones and neighbors so that they can reform their ways. In other words, lead by example.

      Only this time, WMD will detonate and a million billion Krakatoa’s will explode simultaneously and life itself will disappear. We are fighting a lost battle.

      Nonsense. They have succeeded in people like you. Sadly, most of internet commentariat demonstrate complete abdication of courage, strength, wisdom and leadership. The words of Teddy Roosevelt apply today more than ever. Pay heed.

      The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; ….It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly….

  5. Since there’s not much of a topic happening here regarding this article, I’ll take the opportunity to post this reminder that as the sun goes down here in the eastern time zone we’re coming up on FOUR (4) DAYS since the Motion for Recusal against Judge Chutkan in the second USA v Trump case became ripe for ruling — after the Motion for Recusal was filed on Sept. 11, Responded to by the DOJ on Sept. 14, and the Response was Replied to on Sept 17 — and there has still been no ruling.

    This seems rather unusual, since Judge Chutkan has been ruling rather quickly after motions become ripe, and especially since the Motion for Recusal doesn’t need Judge Chutkan to engage in extensive review of the record or law, as it involves the judge’s own extemporaneous comments of record —

    — and an elementary principle stated in the Code of Judicial Conduct. It’s part of the Judicial Code that a judge should be as familiar with as his or her own name, and the sort of issue that the judge should have been able to rule on in 4 minutes, let alone FOUR DAYS.

    1. Ralph – do you take this as a sign that the judge may in fact recuse? Like she’s not rejecting the motion out of hand?

      1. Honestly, I’ve seen this situation go either way. She might be stalling for time, to get a few rulings in before recusal and further shape the case the way she wants, or she might simply be ignoring the motion as a way of giving the finger to Trump’s lawyers. If it were a state court I’d have a better feel for it, but I’m not sure how a federal court would view any lack of action on Chutkan’s part — especially in THAT district. She might also be giving others time to strategize. OR they might be facing a problem that almost any other judge in that district has made similar stupidly-prejudicial comments.

        It’s a conundrum (and I’m LOVING it), and you can bet they’re all wondering what other cards Trump’s lawyer might play. For that reason, I suppose there’s a good chance that the transcripts of trials of other J6 defendants are being reviewed, since it would be extra embarrassing if Chutkan were to be yanked and replaced by a different judge who turns out to have made comments that are even more prejudicial.

        Anyway, there MUST be a reason — otherwise I’m sure Chutkan would have loved nothing better than to DENY the motion in the blink of an eye, which is as close as a judge usually comes to giving someone the finger.

        Oh, and I also think part of the strategy here is that if Chutkan denies the Motion, it might make it easier for Trump to move for a change of venue on the basis that not only is the jury pool contaminated, but so is the entire pool of potential judges.

        So I guess I’m seeing this as a kind of chess match, in which case I’d bet on the lawyer, not the judge, because the judge was GIVEN her job, but the lawyer won his job by beating the other lawyers in the jungle.

        LOTS of moving parts here.

        1. Ralph – that’s a much more thorough analysis than I could have given. My one skepticism is with the idea that she’s weighing whether other judges will also have to recuse. But I could be wrong.

          1. I don’t know that it’s Chutkan who’s weighing whether other judges will also have to recuse. But I think that the judges ABOVE her in the DC system — whoever has to appoint her replacement — are looking into that, and probably told her to take her time dealing (or not dealing) with this while they look into it.

    2. “Because our system of justice is based on the reality and
      appearance of fairness, recusal is required whenever “impartiality might reasonably be
      questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Such is the case here. Judge Chutkan’s statements point to the
      unmistakable conclusion that the appearance of prejudgment will infect every aspect of this case and cause the public to rightly question the very legitimacy of these historic proceedings…”

      Judicial Cannons have no teeth. Judges may simply ignore them with impunity. Lawyers are responsible to report a judge who defies the Cannons, but in light of the fact these same judges decide how much money then make, this conflict of interest serves to corrupt our courts.

      In fact, there is no restraint on our judges to behave with integrity, practically speaking. Our judiciary makes the Mob look like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

  6. Why doesn’t Biden put the nearly 500,000 Venezuelan migrants he granted temporary legal status to,
    On the UAW Autolines to make Cars & Truck, They could also replace the SAG-AFTRA & Writers Guild of America
    In fact with 500K available, Biden could have a Venezuelan for Every Striker in America, and if he runs out, He just has to let some more in.

    It’s a Win Win Win: The Auto and SAG-AFTRA WGA won’t have to have that heavy work load anymore, the Venezuelans have Jobs, and the Democrats get more Votes.

    I admit the whole A.I. thing had me a bit worried, but with plenty of Venezuelans to go around – who’s gonna complain!

    It’s a great Plan! – Jonathan, how about lining up a few Venezuelans to replace Daren and Kristin and a couple of Em to take Luna for Walks.
    [We’ll maybe not Kristin, she kinda irreplaceable – But Daren’s fair game, he’s a good sport]

    1. Unions are unconstitutional criminal organizations.

      “Strikes” are illegal acts.

      Unions have no bargaining tools other than property damage, bodily injury or the threat thereof.

      Americans are free to start a business or accept or reject employment.

      Workers are not free to disturb the peace, trespass, or commit property damage and/or bodily injury.

      No American has any power to cause property damage or bodily injury as a “strike” tactic.

      “Strikes” are illegal activities.

      Only the owners hold dominion over private property.

  7. Best wishes for your speech, Professor, and here’s hoping the students can keep it civil and not act like screaming left-wing banshees as they do at so many other campuses whenever a non-ultra-liberal person gives a speech.

  8. God likes to kill people so maybe God was working through Hitler to kill lots of people, instead of working through a hurricane or earthquake.

  9. A little off topic. They say a sitting president can not be indicted, so the special counsel investigating Biden’s possession of classified documents can’t touch him for possibly 6 more years. The president can be impeached and there is an impeachment inquiry currently in the congress, so do they have a right to look at the classified documents case to see if it constitutes an impeachable case as well?

  10. Dear Prof. Turley: practicing commercial law for well over 40 years, I have always felt that the Consitution is a masterpiece among democratic nations, including, Art 14, Sec 3. While I doubt that I can change your mind, nothing in Sec. 3 is confusing or ambiguous . . . the words remain as clear today as they were when Sec. 3 was first adopted: “rebellion” is defined by Merriam Websters as “open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government – an instance of such defiance or resistance”; if the Jan 6th matter was not a rebellion against the process of the Electoral College, I can’t think of a better example; and, if former Pres. Trump was not an “officer of the United States” as President, I ask, respectfully, what was he President of?
    Kind regards,
    Steve Aspero
    Villanova Univ, Class of ’69 & commissioned USNR Ensign

    1. Who was “armed” during your imaginary “rebellion”? It would be the only armed rebellion in history where the rebels forgot to bring arms — AND decided to go home after a few hours. You’re playing fast & loose with the definitions of “armed” and “rebellion.”

      1. no, not quite, Ralph . . . seems you must be referring to a “Jan 6th” in some other year; see this list for starters . . . it’s short but why did so many of the other rebellious rioters have protective bullet-proof vests on:
        Leslie Grimes, 25, of Michigan, was arrested at Capital January 6, 2021, by Metropolitan Police Department officers and charged with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of a large-capacity magazine, and possession of unregistered ammunition;
        Christopher Michael Alberts, 33, of Maryland, was arrested outside the U.S. Capitol on the evening of January 6, 2021 with a 9mm Taurus handgun that held 12 rounds — two more than the legal limit — and another magazine holding 12 rounds;
        Cleveland Grover Meredith of North Carolina planned to arrive in D.C. for the Trump rallies on Jan. 6, according to federal prosecutors, but he was delayed because of car trouble. He was arrested the following day for allegedly assaulting a man in Washington, D.C. During a search, law enforcement said they found in his possession “a Glock 19, nine millimeter pistol, a Tavor X95 assault rifle and approximately hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

        1. Three people were going to over throw the entire US government? The Capitol PD, the FBI, the ATF, the DC PD, the NG and let us not forget the US military?

        2. LOL — You’re conflating bulletproof vests with weapons? Seems to me that bulletproof vests on people who aren’t carrying guns are evidence that people were concerned about getting shot, NOT evidence shooting or intending to shoot anyone.

          And then you identified TWO people — out of more than ten thousand — that you say had guns, with a third who was arrested somewhere else NOT at the Capitol. And you provided no information concerning whether the TWO people with guns simply had the guns on them — possibly with carry permits and not knowing whether it was legal or not to have guns there.

          Trying to be objective, I would suggest that if you stopped and randomly frisked 10,000 people at any random time and location in the USA, you’d normally find that FAR MORE than TWO were carrying guns. But you claim that the presence of these TWO in a crowd of over 10,000 transformed the gathering into an armed rebellion? LOL LOL LOL

          In short, you identified ZERO shootings by anyone in the crowd, and no reason to believe that the TWO people with guns were intending to use weapons which they may have been carrying as a matter of their daily habit and LEGALLY or thought they were carrying legally.

          That’s one of the most pitiful arguments I’ve read in months.

          1. Ralph and Upstate – they have to keep the “insurrection” mythology alive as a political blunt force weapon (what else than a religious or mythological belief could cause someone to term it a “rebellion”?). What happened in DC was a calm day in Portland. Meanwhile, weapons at Antifa/BLM riots include explosive fireworks, Molotov cocktails, lasers to blind police, and guns. Weapons used in the real insurrection in Fallujah included machine guns, mortars and improvised explosive devices that could penetrate armored vehicles. Antifa says it wants to overthrow the US government. Antifa has engaged in a sustained program of riots that have killed dozens, injured hundreds and destroyed billions of dollars’ worth of property. However, when Trump called Antifa/BLM riots an insurrection, Democrats objected, and prominent Democrats, like VP Harris and Rep. Maxine Waters encouraged more rioting and raised bail money for rioters.

          2. Ralph: I’m sure you are aware that Art. 14, Sec. 3 has no express requirement vis-a-vis the term “rebellion” contained in Sec. 3 that for it to be effective as a disqualifier for office, that those participating in the rebellion be gun-toting rebels. Again, if the climbing up the front walls, smashing of the windows and breaiking and entereing varioius Congressional offices like Pelosi’s isn’t rebellious action, your apparent view that the events of Jan 6th were some sort of peaceful protest is, to put it simply, preposterous.

            1. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §5, states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

              And . . . 18 U.S.C. §2383 reads in full:

              Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

              So – now that Congress has passed “appropriate legislation” to “enforce the provisions of this article” (that is, the provisions of the 14th Amendment), it’s pretty fairly clear that that legislation controls whether someone is “incapable of holding” federal office.

              Being as it’s a criminal statute, a criminal conviction is needed, either based on a guilty plea or proof by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

            2. “open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government – an instance of such defiance or resistance”

              The people of Portland, Seattle, Richmond, Baltimore, Washington DC, NYC, Minneapolis, Detroit, and CONUS in general would like to have a word with you about BLM ANTIFA and their summer of love open, armed, and usually un successful defiance of or resistance to an established government – an instance of such defiance or resistance

              Hopefully you did better in practicing commercial law for well over 40 years than observing current events, because your legal analysis and sins of omission of historical uprisings is less than Esquire-like.

              Me thinks you are Joe Patrice of “Above the Law ” and ticked off that no law school ever invites you to speak

              1. Estovir – when purporting to apply his own definition, he also sneakily switched out “established government” (of which Trump was president) and substituted “electoral college process” as I pointed out below.

                1. Gentlemen: the electoral process that I referred to is, without any doubt, part and parcel of this Country’s established government. BTW, permit me to ask all participants in this debate if you would each let me know what Sec. 3 of Art. 14 means.

                  1. Again you employ sophistry. The definition you quoted did not have the words “part and parcel of.” You know that Trump was president at the time, so he could not have rebelled against his own government. Thus, you twist the words for rhetorical purposes.

                    Your Section 3 theory won’t hold up to scrutiny, particularly in light of Congress having passed enforcing legislation as I pointed out above. Like all constitutional provisions, Section 3 takes its full meaning and operation based on the overall context in which it appears, which includes Section 5.

                    1. You are being trolled.

                      Recall that the paid DNC trolls and other left wing trolls seek to change the subject, detract from the articles posted and create their own threads.

                      The article submitted by Professor Turley is as mundane as they come: speaking at Villanova. Yet, the troll predictably descended on this article to change the topic, used sophistry (lied) to detract from Turley at Villanova, and created their own thread. That is their general schema, a template followed by the DNC paid trolls. Moreover, when you and I poked fun, the troll suddenly “conceded” and sought to grow the thread by “asking” an insincere question by resorting to sealioning – classic troll-speak. When the troll failed to get our engagement, the troll created another sock puppet “Harmon”, and then replied to Harmon under their original sock puppet, Stephen M. Aspero, followed by more adolescent commentary. Frustrated, now the troll appeals to Ukraine, children, Maui, and utter bullsheet as trolls are want to do

                      Watch for these patterns when Turley uploads an article. Its psychops, and done at such an infantile level, like Dennis, that it is predictable, unpersuasive and boring. They graduated from a lower tier school like Fisk University 😜

                    2. Estovir – you just taught me a new word: sealioning. I had to look it up:

                      Sealioning is a critical term for a form of trolling that involves relentlessly pestering someone with questions and requests (such as for evidence or sources), typically with the goal of upsetting them and making their position or viewpoint seem weak or unreasonable.

            3. That fact that Turley allows liars like you to make up BS and post it here is the most-disgraceful thing about this website. The webmaster SHOULD be able to tell that most or all of these replies to Stephen’s entry in the Stupidest-Comment-of-the-Month Contest are not coming from the same source — likely not even coming from the same state — yet you are permitted to post total rubbish claiming that a half dozen people (all of whom I’ve personally disagreed with at one time or another) are the same person.

              1. Ok, everybody needs to take a step back and take a break . . no need for any invective. While this so-called disqualification Article in the Constitution is fascinating, it is not deserving of this kind of ad-hominem attacks . . . there is a war going on in Ukraine with children dying daily; the human disasters in Maui, Libya and Morrocco that, for me, a grandfather, are front and center every day and need the attention of all people of good will since the UN has lost its way.

            4. Hello, Harmon: LOL, I just enjoyed a good laugh . . . Thanks. But what whoever he is doesn’t know is that I’m not human, I’m AIChatBot!!!

        3. So two participants who were actually there were armed and one who never made it was.

          Strong argument.

          By the way, which exact federal law is Webster’s Dictionary part of?

    2. “Ray Epps, Jan. 6 rioter who was subject of conspiracy theories, pleads guilty”

      – NBC News

      Ray Epps, the alleged “inside man” of the government, was a rioter; the others were insurrectionists. What?

      “Fed, fed, fed!”

      – Crowd Responding to Ray Epps on Jan. 5

      But that America had adhered to its “manifest tenor” since adoption, it would not be irrevocably communist now. Look around you at the absence of constitutional freedom in all forms and iterations and the ubiquitous and eminently unconstitutional controlling principles of communism:  Central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering. One cannot disagree that Marx’s motto has become America’s: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

      The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court enjoys the power of Judicial Review. Judicial Review allows the Supreme Court to strike down any and all acts of officials and legislators on federal, state and local levels at the time of the completion of the act, which is precisely what Chief Justice Roger B. Taney did against the high-criminal Lincoln regarding his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to act against Lincoln who illicitly and unconstitutionally denied fully constitutional secession allowing Lincoln to conduct his “Reign of Terror.” Lincoln must have been “nipped in the bud.” The Supreme Court also failed to assure enforcement of extant immigration law in 1863 leading to the pervasive societal strife America suffers today. Lincoln and his successors commenced the progressive process of the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in America.

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc. Each unconstitutional law, program and act referenced here must have been contemporaneously struck down by Judicial Review.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

      The singular American failure has been and remains the Supreme Court.

      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

    3. Yo Aspero –

      Merriam Websters as “open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government – an instance of such defiance or resistance”; if the Jan 6th matter was not a rebellion against the process of the Electoral College . . .

      This is sophistry. You quote Webster’s as defining “rebellion” to mean defiance of an “established government” – of which Trump was the President as you well know – and so you shift the definition to mean rebellion against “the process of the Electoral College” for your own rhetorical purposes. So, an electoral college is the same as an “established government”? Yeah right. You destroyed your credibility right there.

      1. not sure my Navy time was “like Hunter Biden”, Creekan, but those 3 years I served aboard ship were 3 of the most rewarding years in my early life . . . wishing you and my other engaging friends, Fair Winds and Following Seas

  11. I hope you will address the extreme level of influence peddling on SCOTUS – particularly Justice Thomas and Harlan Crowe. I mean, it is not only a failure to report – he really should not be taking gifts, vacations like that from people who want to influence the court’s direction. And question why there is not an impeachment inquiry regarding that.

  12. Congratulations Professor Turley!
    Good to see you invited to speak at these institutions of higher learning committed to Constitutional Day celebrations.
    Keep up the good work!

    1. Lincoln killed the rule of law when he acted to deny fully constitutional session and conduct his wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror.” Lincoln killed American freedom which persisted for a mere 71 years. Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; Lincoln threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery. Slavery must have been abrogated by legal means and illegal aliens who could not “…be admitted to become citizens…,” per extant immigration law on January 1, 1863, must have been compassionately repatriated or “colonized,” in Lincoln’s own words. Lincoln initiated and forced the impossible mixing of oil and water – Lincoln assured unending social strife by irrational and incoherent attempts at amalgamation of immutably unassimilable entities. Lincoln left a 3-million-man, standing army on U.S. soil – Haitian et al. reinforcements are invading America without common defense or otherwise opposition as we write. Lincoln commenced the invasion of America and the incremental implementation of the principles of communism which hold dominion over the “fundamentally transformed” United States of America.

      God Bless America

Leave a Reply