Exhibition at the Library of Congress Co-Sponsored by The Federalist SocietyNovember 06, 10:00 AMLibrary of Congress 101 Independence Ave., SE Washington, DC 20540
The Library of Congress will celebrate the 800th anniversary of the first issue of Magna Carta with a 10-week exhibition from Thursday, November 6, 2014 through Monday, January 19, 2015. The 1215 Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta will be the centerpiece of the exhibition. In addition, there will be approximately 75 items from the Law Library of Congress and from various other divisions of the Library, which will tell the story of 800 years of Magna Carta’s influence on the history of political liberty.
The Library’s exhibition will demonstrate how interpretations of Magna Carta through the centuries led to the constitutional guarantees of individual liberty brought forth by the Founding Fathers of the United States. It will describe how a number of the most basic principles of the U.S. Constitution—consent of the governed, the right to a trial by jury, the right to due process of law, freedom from unlawful imprisonment and limited government under the law—can be traced to Magna Carta.
The Library’s exhibition also will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta’s first visit to the Library of Congress. After a six-month exhibit in the British Pavilion at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, the document traveled to Washington, D.C. In an official ceremony on November 28, 1939, Lord Lothian, ambassador to the United States handed Magna Carta over to Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish for safekeeping during World War II. The Library placed the document on exhibition until the U.S. entry into the war, when the Library sent Magna Carta to Fort Knox, Kentucky. The document returned to England in 1946.
Law Librarian of Congress David S. Mao said, "Through this exhibition we will celebrate the core tradition of the rule of law. While aiming to detail the enduring impact of Magna Carta over 800 years, our exhibit will illuminate its influence on our legal traditions and political thought while examining the unfolding story of the rule of law throughout the world. We look forward to taking a leading role in the American commemoration of the 800th anniversary of this legal treasure."
The exhibition curator is Nathan Dorn, rare book curator in the Law Library of Congress, and the exhibition directors are Cheryl Ann Regan and Martha Hopkins from the Library’s Interpretive Programs Office.
Additionally, the Library of Congress curated and provided materials for a facsimile traveling exhibition on Magna Carta for the American Bar Association (ABA). The exhibition opened at the 2014 ABA Annual Meeting in Boston and will travel across the United States for the next few years. In June 2015, the ABA Magna Carta Facsimile Traveling Exhibit will journey to England. For more information on ABA’s Magna Carta commemoration, visit www.facebook.com/abamagnacarta.
In his new book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Professor Philip Hamburger answers the provocative question posed in his title in the affirmative. Rather than accepting administrative law as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative and traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the United States Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Professor Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the U.S. Constitution — and constitutions in general — were designed to prevent.
Professor Hamburger joined us on a Teleforum conference call to discuss his new book, with additional commentary from Adam White. Mr. White’s recent review of the book for the Wall Street Journal is available here.
Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Washington University in Saint Louis School of Law Professor Brian Z. Tamanaha argues law schools are failing abjectly. Recent front-page stories have detailed widespread practices, including false reporting of LSAT and GPA scores, misleading placement reports, and the fundamental failure to prepare graduates to enter the profession.
Addressing all these problems and more in his book, Failing Law Schools, Prof. Tamanaha lays out the how and why of the crisis and the likely consequences if these trends continue. The out-of-pocket cost of obtaining a law degree at many schools now approaches $200,000. The legal job market is the worst in decades, with the scarce jobs offering starting salaries well below what is needed to handle such a debt load. At the heart of the problem, Prof. Tamanaha argues, are the economic demands and competitive pressures on law schools, paired with a lack of regulatory oversight, the work environment of professors, the limited information available to prospective students, and loan-based tuition financing. Bringing to the table his years of experience from within the legal academy, Prof. Tamanaha assesses what he believes is wrong with law schools and suggests how to fix them. James Haynes of the Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee discussed the book and its premises with Prof. Tamanaha.
Professor Brian Z. Tamanaha, William Gardiner Hammond Professor of Law, Israel Treiman Faculty Fellow 2013-2014, Washington University School of Law
James A. Haynes, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group, The Federalist Society
Originalism holds that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning at the time it was enacted. In their innovative defense of originalism, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport maintain that the text of the Constitution should be adhered to by the Supreme Court because it was enacted by supermajorities — both its original enactment under Article VII and subsequent Amendments under Article V. A text approved by supermajorities has special value in a democracy because it has unusually wide support and thus tends to maximize the welfare of the greatest number.
The authors recognize and respond to many possible objections. Does originalism perpetuate the dead hand of the past? How can following the original meaning be justified, given that African Americans and women were excluded from the enactment of the Constitution in 1787 and many of its subsequent Amendments? What is originalism’s place in interpretation of the Constitution, when after two hundred years there is so much non-originalist precedent?
A fascinating counterfactual they pose is this: had the Supreme Court not interpreted the Constitution so freely, perhaps the nation would have resorted to the Article V amendment process more often and with greater effect. The authors of Originalism and the Good Constitution, Prof. Michael B. Rappaport and Prof. John O. McGinnis, discussed the book along with commentary from Prof. Michael Greve on a live Teleforum conference call.
Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Michael B. Rappaport, Darling Foundation Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law