FedSoc on Facebook
FedSoc on YouTube
The Federalist Society Online Debate Series
2008
October 28, 2008
As we celebrate the quadrennial practice of electing our president, attention turns once again to the enigma of the Electoral College. The United States is unique among modern nations in choosing its Chief Executive by indirect election, and proposals to alter or eliminate the Electoral College have been common throughout our history. In this installment of Originally Speaking, author Tara Ross and American University Professor of Law Jamie Raskin consider the Electoral College: is it an essential component of our constitutional system of government, or just a perverse relic of an undemocratic age?
August 6, 2008
University of Minnesota Law's Dale Carpenter, Colorado Law's Robert Nagel, Northwestern University Law's Andy Koppelman, and the University of Pennsylvania Law's Amy Wax debate whether or not the right to marry should be extended to same sex couples.
"Individual Liberty and the Constitution"
July 9, 2008
In a recent article in "The American Spectator" Judge Bork set out some thoughts on individual liberty and the Constitution. In the following forum we provide excerpts from this article followed by some thoughts on it from Cato’s Vice President for Legal Affairs and Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Roger Pilon, Northwestern Law Professor Steve Calabresi, New York University Law Professor Barry Friedman, and George Mason University School of Law Professor Jeremy Rabkin. (Further contributions from additional experts are to come.)
Updated on 7/11/08 at 10:22 AM
June 27, 2008
The Supreme Court ended its OT07 term on June 26, 2008.
We are hosting a live online written forum on the end of the Supreme Court OT07 term. Participants include Case Western's Jon Adler, Boston University Law's Jack Beermann, Northwestern Law's Steve Calabresi, Cooper & Kirk's Chuck Cooper, Baker Bott's Allyson Ho, Erik S. Jaffe, P.C.'s Erik Jaffe, Georgetown Law's Marty Lederman, NYU Law's Rick Pildes, George Washington Law's Jeffrey Rosen, Harvard Law's Mark Tushnet, and the Ethics & Public Policy Center's Ed Whelan.
Updated on 7/7/08 at 5:20 p.m.
District of Columbia v. Heller
June 26, 2008
The Court has decided the District of Columbia v. Heller case.
The decision, in striking down the DC gun ban, held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, is HERE.
Please join us as Roger Williams University Professor of Law Carl Bogus, Morgan Lewis partner Ted Cruz, George Mason University of Law Professor Nelson Lund, and UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler discuss the case. Remember to refresh your browser as the debate will be ongoing and we will be posting comments as we get them.
Updated on 6/30/2008 at 1:05 p.m.
June 19, 2008
On June 25, 2008 the Supreme Court decided Kennedy v. Louisiana, holding that the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child. On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court decided Baze v. Rees, a case considering the constitutionality of Kentucky's method of lethal injection. The Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection protocol, which is fairly close to the protocol used in 36 states and by the federal government. In light of the important death penalty questions considered this term, a panel of experts-- Former Chief of the Appellate Division in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia Bill Otis, the Northern California ACLU's Director of Death Penalty Policy, Natasha Minsker, the Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Kent Scheidegger, and University of Houston Law professor David Dow --discuss the legal and moral implications of capital punishment.
Subprime Lending & Financial Services Reform
May 13, 2008
In recent months, there has been a lot of discussion about the “sub-prime mortgage crisis”, its causes, and what should be done about it. One response has been calls from a number of quarters for financial services reform. George Mason University Professor of Law Todd Zywicki, University of North Carolina Law Professor Melissa Jacoby, and Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Professor Kathleen Engel discuss these issues.
Part II: Presidential & Congressional Power
April 1, 2008
On March 25, 2008 the Supreme Court decided the Medellin v. Texas case. The Court ruled that neither Avena nor the President's Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. Solicitor General for the State of Texas and attorney for the respondent Ted Cruz, Saint Louis University School of Law professor David Sloss, Georgetown University Law Center professor Nick Rosenkranz, and former Legal Adviser to the U.S. State Department and current partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Edwin Williamson discuss the Court's decision in Part II of this debate: Presidential Power. Read Part I: Self-Execution. Read Part II: Presidential & Congressional Power.
Part I: Self-Execution
March 28, 2008
On March 25, 2008 the Supreme Court decided the Medellin v. Texas case. The Court ruled that neither Avena nor the President's Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. Solicitor General for the State of Texas and attorney for the respondent Ted Cruz, Saint Louis University School of Law professor David Sloss, Georgetown University Law Center professor Nick Rosenkranz, and former Legal Adviser to the U.S. State Department and current partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Edwin Williamson discuss the Court's decision in Part I: Self-Execution. Read Part II: Presidential Power.
Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta
February 19, 2008
On January 15, 2008 the Supreme Court decided the Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta case. The Court ruled that the implied private right of action in section 10 (b) does not extend to fraud claims against a non-issuer of a security whose allegedly misleading statements and conduct was not directly relied on by investors in making investment decisions. UCLA Law professor Stephen Bainbridge, Denver Sturm College of Law professor Jay Brown, the American Enterprise Institute's Ted Frank, Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus, University of Texas at Austin - McCombs School of Business professor Robert Prentice, and Ohio Assistant Attorney General Andrea Seidt debate whether the Court decided the Stoneridge case correctly.
Total Records: 12
| [ Next ] |
