News and Announcements

A full video clip of the debate:

-----------------------------------------------------------

This is an exclusive invitation to attend a live Mayoral Debate at a historic Gramercy Park venue -- hosted, organized, and moderated by our very own group! This is an "open partisan" debate, as all declared mayoral candidates, regardless of their party affiliation were invited. The debate will take place a weekend prior to the September 12th primaries.

The following candidates have confirmed their participation in the debate:

• Fmr. Councilmember Sal Albanese (D)
• Richard Bashner, Esq. (D)
• Akeem Browder (G)
• Aaron Commey (L)
• Bob Gangi (D)
• Mike Tolkin (D)

The following candidates were invited, but haven't responded or confirmed:

• Mayor Bill de Blasio (D)
• Fmr. NYPD Det. Bo Dietl (I)
• Assmeblywoman Nicole Malliotakis (R)

----------------------------------------------------------

The debate will be in a "townhall" format, covering the following topics:

This is a multi-part discussion series examining the ostensibly-sudden rise of nationalism in different parts of the world.

Building from themes that emerged from Part One, for Part Two, we'll explore the current political climate and the "nationalistic fervor" enveloping in China, India, and Pakistan, including the following:

• "Nationalism" as a political ideology, giving rise to "Ethno-Nationalism" and "religious-based" nationalism.

• The emergence of the "National Consciousness."

• How "Nationalism" spills over into overseas or extraterritorial military expansion.

• The difference between "populist nationalism" and "authoritarian nationalism."

---------------------------------------------------------

CHINA, then and now:

---------------------------------------------------------

INDIA and PAKISTAN, then and now:


This week also marks the 70th Anniversary of the Partition.

---------------------------------------------------------

We'll continue our discussion in this new series -- LAW, HISTORY AND POLITICS.

he LHP series explore the intersections of its namesake -- an in-depth study of a particular law, court decision, or a legal precedent that shaped the political forces and its historical ramifications.

The LHP series will start out with subject matters that directly relate to the U.S. For instance, we'll discuss landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, particular Constitutional Amendments, or an influential Legislative body of work.

The advanced LHP series will explore international and comparative law from a historic perspective. These may include: Magna Carta, the Code of Justinian, the Code of Hammurabi -- to more recent selections, such as the Treaty of Versailles, the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

----------------------------------------------------------------
For this meeting, we'll read and discuss the following:

1) The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 --

Once upon a time, Congress enacted a law to prohibit an entire class of individuals from entering the U.S., based on race and ethnicity.

It's that time of the year again -- as the Court recently wrapped up its 2016 Term, a series of important decisions were handed down in the waning days. While the cases are not as contentious as the 2014 or the 2015 Terms, the 2016 Term, nonetheless, consisted of matters brimming with public policy significance.

As always, we'll be discussing these cases from a prism of political or public policy lenses -- no prior legal experience, or a comprehensive understanding of the Constitution or the Supreme Court is required.

To that end, we'll discuss the following cases:

• Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer -- Does the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? (Holding: yes).

• Matal v. Tam -- Is the "disparagement" clause of the Lanham Act, banning the trademark of offensive names, of an Asian rock band "The Slants," unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment? (Holding: yes).