pageok
pageok
pageok
Federalist Society Faculty Conference:
Law professors among the VC readership who plan to attend the AALS annual meeting on January 3-6 should also consider attending some events across the street (both physically and ideologically) at the Federalist Society's Annual Faculty Conference. The Federalist Society's faculty events tend to be much more engaging and substantive than the typical fare at the AALS; they consist mostly of panels on controversial "hot topics" and short academic paper presentations by individual faculty members.

  You can see the schedule for the conference here. I'm particularly interested in two panels, both of which happen to include fellow Conspirators: 1) "May the President disregard a congressional statute for national security reasons?", featuring John Yoo, Louis Fisher, co-blogger Ilya Somin, and Sai Prakash, moderated by Doug Kmiec; and 2) "The new movement to use originalism to justify the living Constitution," which will include co-blogger Randy Barnett, John Harrison, Michael Rappaport, and Kermit Roosevelt, and will be moderated by John McGinnis.
DavidBernstein (mail):
Those do look like two great panels. If I'm not too preoccupied with my move back to Arlington, I'll be there.
12.19.2006 5:58pm
jim:
Does anyone know if there will be transcripts or podcasts of these talks?
12.20.2006 3:13am
Respondent (mail):
I think that unless we are willing to make provisions of the constitution obsolete, we have to be willing to apply it to modern circumstances, where they differ from the original ones. Pretty much everyone agrees that a free press includes the internet, for example. I use the same argument to defend much (but not all) of SCOTUS's death penalty jurisprudence, not on cruel and unusual grounds (Justice Thomas has, in my opinion, conclusively proved the meaning of those words (although I disagree with him on its appliction to prison conditions)), but on due process grounds. We need to require more judicial process for a sentence of death than used to be required to compensate for the almost complete absence of executive clemency in today's political climate, so the judicial process "due" now is more than the judicial process that used to be "due". That said, in order for the constitution to meaningfully limit the government, I don't feel that it's justified to use "changed circumstances" to constrain rights or limits on government explicitly or implicitly put into the constitution. The commerce clause still needs to be strictly enforced, along with a right to bear any arms that could be of practical use against a tyrannical government (this excludes virtually nothing other than WMD's), and of course executive agencies can't be allowed to "regulate" without say, a weekly rubber stamp bill passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. I wonder if my view roughly correlates with Professor Barnett's view.
12.20.2006 3:10pm
Hayley Reynolds (mail) (www):
In response to the question above -- yes, there will be podcasts of the panels available after the conference. You can obtain them individually or subscribe to the feed through our website or through iTunes (the podcast category "Government and Organizations").
12.21.2006 12:01pm