Podcasts about carmack waterhouse professor

We are pleased to be joined by Professor Randy E. Barnett, a member of the Legal Board of Reference for Convention of States. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and is Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Check out his new book 'A Life for Liberty,' available now. 

Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics, David Super from the Georgetown University Law Center weighs in on what's next for former US President Donald Trump legally and politically, following his most recent indictment for unlawfully keeping national-security documents after he has left office and lying to officials who sought to recover them. Presented by: Lynlee Foo This podcast is produced and edited by Yeo Kai Ting (ykaiting@sph.com.sg)   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At a 2014 panel given before a group of state legislators, Randy Barnett speaks on why the Convention of States Project has the best strategy to call an Article V convention. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown University and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

On this week’s In Black America, producer and host John L. Hanson, Jr. speaks with Shjeryll Cashin, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Civil Rights and Social Justice at Georgetown University and author of White Space, Black ‘Hood: Opportunity Hoarding and Segregation in the Age of Inequality.

For today's episode, Tyrell and Daphne welcome Professor Sheryll Cashin, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Civil Rights and Social Justice at Georgetown University. They begin the conversation by discussing Professor Cashin's professional journey from law clerk under Thurgood Marshall to author of five books (32:25). Next, they discuss the motivation behind her most recent book—White Space, Black Hood—which traces the history of anti-Black residential caste (40:00). They also have a conversation about the anti-black processes that reproduce residential segregation (45:40) and concrete steps that policymakers can take to enact racial equity (55:30). They close the episode by discussing her book, The Agitator's Daughter (1:17:05).  Other Topics Include:  00:30 - Check in with Tyrell and Daphne  05:50 - BhD “Oh Lawd” News  30:05 - Introduction of the Topic  1:24:05- Tyrell and Daphne Reflect on the Interview  Resources: BhD Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/bhdpodcast  Professor Sheryll Cashin - https://sheryllcashin.com/ | https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/sheryll-d-cashin/ White Space, Black Hood - https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/609000/white-space-black-hood-by-sheryll-cashin/  The Agitator's Daughter - https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/sheryll-cashin/the-agitators-daughter/9780786721726/ 

In conversation with Richard Rothstein Sheryll Cashin's NAACP Image Award–nominated books on racism and inequality include The Failures of Integration, The Agitator's Daughter, and Place, Not Race. The Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Civil Rights and Social Justice at Georgetown University, a contributing editor at Politico, and a member of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Cashin formerly worked as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and in the Clinton's White House. White Space, Black Hood, which Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. referred to as ''riveting and beautifully written'' and ''meticulously researched'', uses two decades of data to expose the ways in which the U.S. government fostered inequality through the creation of impoverished Black spaces and affluent white spaces. A distinguished fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a senior fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Richard Rothstein is the author of the bestselling book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America and is a former national education columnist for The New York Times. (recorded 10/5/2021)

On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.Featuring:- M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown University- Lawrence Gostin, University Professor and Director, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University- David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University- [Moderator] Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student ChapterVisit our website – https://RegProject.org​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.Featuring: Prof. David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown LawProf. Lawrence O. Gostin, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Georgetown LawProf. M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown LawProf. Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown LawModerator: Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student ChapterVisit our website – https://RegProject.org​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The guest this week is Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center. Randy discusses how being a law professor has changed in the last 40 years; lessons from teaching at different law schools; the experience of being a libertarian law professor; and the role of law school centers. Music: www.bensound.com

Scot and Jeff discuss The Zombies and Argent with Randy Barnett. Introducing the Band: Your hosts Scot Bertram (@ScotBertram) and Jeff Blehar (@EsotericCD) with guest Randy Barnett. Randy is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he directs the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. He also writes at The Volokh Conspiracy. Follow him on Twitter at @RandyEBarnett. Randy's Music Pick: The Zombies and Argent It's summertime, and the livin' is easy, which also means that it's the time of the season to discuss not one, but two of the great semi-forgotten bands of pop-rock era in The Zombies and their progressive-rock sequel Argent. The Zombies — led by keyboardist Rod Argent, bassist Chris White, and lead singer Colin Blunstone — may have gotten inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame very recently, but odds are that unless you are a Sixties music snob you still aren't aware of just how brilliant they actually were as a band, how underrated Argent and White were as pop songwriters and lyricists, and how shockingly great their entire discography is. As Jeff says during the show, even though The Zombies scored three big hits in America (trust us, you've heard “She's Not There” and “Time Of The Season” even if only subliminally, and you probably know “Tell Her No” as well), the rest of their career exemplifies most bizarre losing streak in rock history, because practically every single one of the songs they released (and several that they didn't!) were top-tier pop and art-rock compositions, and they ended their career with what ranks among the finest albums of the decade in Odessey And Oracle. But the story doesn't end there! After The Zombies broke up due to lack of commercial success and critical recognition (both would eventually come, albeit too late for the group), Argent and White went on to form a new band, the eponymous Argent, based around the songwriting skills of Rod and Chris and with the added strength of lead singer Russ Ballard bringing his own music to bear. Argent rapidly moved away from the bright, brisk pop-rock of The Zombies into the piano/organ-based art- and progressive-rock style of the Seventies, and yet still managed to put out a remarkable amount of fine music on their own. Click play and enjoy — is this the dream band you've been crying out for?

Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center joins us on the podcast to discuss some of the constitutional elements of the COVID-19 lockdowns, as well as the ideological undercurrents fueling our polarized political climate. What real, practical problems do the lockdowns pose with regards to the Fourteenth Amendment? How is the pandemic becoming an arena for the arbitrary exercise of the police power by government officials? What do the lockdowns and the recent protests reveal about modern liberalism? Are we witnessing the destruction of the “moderate left” in real-time? Professor Barnett tackles these issues and others with Congressman Crenshaw. Professor Randy Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center. He teaches constitutional law and contracts and is the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Professor Barnett has authored numerous books and textbooks, including the recently published "An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know," which he co-authored with Professor Josh Blackman. Follow him on Twitter at @RandyEBarnett.

Featuring Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center; and Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; and Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.Related Content: Coronavirus and the Constitution See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the fourth showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism and Precedent."The Supreme Court has decided hundreds of cases, many of which do not seem to square with the original meaning. How much account, if any, should originalism take account of precedent. Are there particular precedent rules that originalism can generate?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law SchoolProf. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Research and Intellectual Life, Stanford Law SchoolProf. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawHon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the fourth showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism and Precedent."The Supreme Court has decided hundreds of cases, many of which do not seem to square with the original meaning. How much account, if any, should originalism take account of precedent. Are there particular precedent rules that originalism can generate?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law SchoolProf. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Research and Intellectual Life, Stanford Law SchoolProf. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawHon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawProf. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawProf. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of LawModerator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawProf. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawProf. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of LawModerator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On today’s episode of So to Speak, we ask the question, “can free speech be progressive?” Our guest is Louis Michael Seidman. He is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown Law and the author of the much-discussed 2018 Columbia Law Review article “Can Free Speech Be Progressive?” Click here for a transcript of the podcast. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Bennet Kelley welcomes Peter Edelman, his law professor and aide to Bobby Kennedy, to talk about the 50th anniversary of his presidential campaign and assassination and what it means today. Peter Edelman is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and poverty law and is faculty director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.

When we think of constitutional law, we invariably think of the United States Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton argues that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in protecting individual liberties. The book tells four stories that arise in four different areas of constitutional law: equal protection; criminal procedure; privacy; and free speech and free exercise of religion. Traditional accounts of these bedrock debates about the relationship of the individual to the state focus on decisions of the United States Supreme Court. But these explanations tell just part of the story. The book corrects this omission by looking at each issue--and some others as well--through the lens of many constitutions, not one constitution; of many courts, not one court; and of all American judges, not federal or state judges. Taken together, the stories reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has all of the answers to the most vexing constitutional questions. If there is a central conviction of the book, it's that an underappreciation of state constitutional law has hurt state and federal law and has undermined the appropriate balance between state and federal courts in protecting individual liberty. In trying to correct this imbalance, the book also offers several ideas for reform. Author Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit will join Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit to discuss his new book. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

When we think of constitutional law, we invariably think of the United States Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton argues that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in protecting individual liberties. The book tells four stories that arise in four different areas of constitutional law: equal protection; criminal procedure; privacy; and free speech and free exercise of religion. Traditional accounts of these bedrock debates about the relationship of the individual to the state focus on decisions of the United States Supreme Court. But these explanations tell just part of the story. The book corrects this omission by looking at each issue--and some others as well--through the lens of many constitutions, not one constitution; of many courts, not one court; and of all American judges, not federal or state judges. Taken together, the stories reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has all of the answers to the most vexing constitutional questions. If there is a central conviction of the book, it's that an underappreciation of state constitutional law has hurt state and federal law and has undermined the appropriate balance between state and federal courts in protecting individual liberty. In trying to correct this imbalance, the book also offers several ideas for reform. Author Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit will join Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit to discuss his new book. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In 1776, the Continental Congress declared the birth of a new nation. Six of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence went on to craft and sign the Constitution in 1787. What role does the Declaration of Independence play in constitutional interpretation? Should it be considered foundational to the Constitution’s purpose and structure or is it just one source among many?Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawProf. Michael P. Zuckert, Nancy Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, The University of Notre DameProf. John Mikhail, Agnes N. Williams Research Professor; Associate Dean, Research and Academic Programs, Professor of Law, Georgetown LawProf. Lee J. Strang, John W. Stoepler Professor of Law & Values, The University of Toledo College of LawModerator: Judge Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered this address at the 2018 National Student Symposium at Georgetown Law on March 10, 2018.Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United StatesIntroduction by: Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawWelcome: Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student Chapter

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered this address at the 2018 National Student Symposium at Georgetown Law on March 10, 2018.Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United StatesIntroduction by: Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawWelcome: Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student Chapter

In 1776, the Continental Congress declared the birth of a new nation. Six of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence went on to craft and sign the Constitution in 1787. What role does the Declaration of Independence play in constitutional interpretation? Should it be considered foundational to the Constitution’s purpose and structure or is it just one source among many?Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawProf. Michael P. Zuckert, Nancy Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, The University of Notre DameProf. John Mikhail, Agnes N. Williams Research Professor; Associate Dean, Research and Academic Programs, Professor of Law, Georgetown LawProf. Lee J. Strang, John W. Stoepler Professor of Law & Values, The University of Toledo College of LawModerator: Judge Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

On Friday, October 6, The Federalist Society hosted a special 90-minute Teleforum to preview the significant cases of the Supreme Court's October 2017 Term. Our experts discussed Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Christie v. NCAA, Carpenter v. US, Gill v. Whitford, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group and more. Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of LawProf. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor Concurrent Professor of Political Science, The Law School, University of Notre DameEugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherIlya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court ReviewProf. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

On Friday, October 6, The Federalist Society hosted a special 90-minute Teleforum to preview the significant cases of the Supreme Court's October 2017 Term. Our experts discussed Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Christie v. NCAA, Carpenter v. US, Gill v. Whitford, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group and more. Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of LawProf. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor Concurrent Professor of Political Science, The Law School, University of Notre DameEugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherIlya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court ReviewProf. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Until 1986, most conservative lawyers favored following the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution rather than the original public meaning of the text of the laws they wrote. Justice Scalia changed all of that with a brilliant speech given at the Justice Department just days before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia argued that it is the laws that Congress makes, and not the legislative history that accompanies them, that the courts must follow. He argued similarly in constitutional cases that we are bound by the texts that our dead ancestors enacted and not by their unenacted intentions and policy views. Since 1986, Justice Scalia's view has so thoroughly swept the field that few proponents of original intention and of following legislative history remain. The triumph of text over intent and over legislative history is one of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Michael S. Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law; Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. Sandra Segal Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?”, there were a lot of answers he could have given. After all, he had presided over some of the most important decisions in the court’s history — cases that dealt with segregation in schools, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, just to name a few. But his answer was a surprise: He said, “Baker v. Carr,” a 1962 redistricting case.  On this episode of More Perfect, we talk about why this case was so important; important enough, in fact, that it pushed one Supreme Court justice to a nervous breakdown, brought a boiling feud to a head, put one justice in the hospital, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever. Associate Justice William O. Douglas (L) and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter (R) (Harris & Ewing Photography/Library of Congress) Top Row (left-right): Charles E. Whittaker, John M. Harlan,William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart. Bottom Row (left-right): William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark. (Library of Congress)    Associate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Whittaker at his desk in his chambers. (Heywood Davis)  The key links: - Biographies of Charles Evans Whittaker, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas from Oyez- A biography of Charles Evans Whittaker written by Craig Alan Smith- A biography of Felix Frankfurter written by H.N. Hirsch- A biography of William O. Douglas written by Bruce Allen Murphy- A book about the history of "one person, one vote" written by J. Douglas Smith- A roundtable discussion on C-SPAN about Baker v. Carr The key voices: - Craig Smith, Charles Whittaker's biographer and Professor of History and Political Science at California University of Pennsylvania - Tara Grove, Professor of Law and Robert and Elizabeth Scott Research Professor at William & Mary Law School- Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown Law- Guy-Uriel Charles, Charles S. Rhyne Professor of Law at Duke Law- Samuel Issacharoff, Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU Law- J. Douglas Smith, author of "On Democracy's Doorstep"- Alan Kohn, former Supreme Court clerk for Charles Whittaker, 1957 Term- Kent Whittaker, Charles Whittaker's son- Kate Whittaker, Charles Whittaker's granddaughter The key cases: - 1962: Baker v. Carr- 2000: Bush v. Gore- 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.  More Perfect is funded in part by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Special thanks to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler. Also big thanks to Jerry Goldman at Oyez.