Podcast appearances and mentions of Randy E Barnett

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 452. I was asked recently to guest lecture for a course taught to some mechanical engineering students at Colorado University Boulder (EMEN 4100: Engineering Economics) by the lecturer, David Assad. Assad covers some ethics related matters in the latter part of the course and asked me to talk generally about ethics and related matters. I discussed ethics, morality, politics, and science. I discussed ethics and its relationship to science and politics, and discussed about what science is, the types of sciences, ethics and ethical theories and the relationship to specialized ethics and morality in general, and its relationship to political ethics and political philosophy. I then discussed libertarianism in general, the nature and function of property rights, and then explained how the intellectual property issue can be addressed based on the libertarian and private law perspective. The references and notes I gave the class are embedded in the slides and reproduced below. https://youtu.be/M3SzBjb5zdA Slides here (ppt) and streamed below: Further reading/references IP Issues Part IV of Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023; https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/) You Can't Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Other resources at https://c4sif.org/resources “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” (Mises Academy, 2011; 6 lectures) concise argument against IP law: “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” KOL037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Intellectual Property Discussion with Mark Skousen “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” and “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright,” in Kinsella, You Can't Own Ideas on the assumption that any additional innovation and creative works incentivized by the IP system are worth more to society than those lost or suppressed due to these same laws: “There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent,” in  You Can't Own Ideas on the assumption that even if IP law gives rise to a net gain to society in terms of extra innovation, invention, and creative works, that this net gain is greater than other costs of the IP system: “There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent,” in You Can't Own Ideas Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes “Copyright is Unconstitutional” IP tutorials (on IP law, not policy) KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other Further Reading: Libertarianism Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023; https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/) Kinsella, The Greatest Libertarian Books, https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/ “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (Mises Academy, 2011; 6 lectures)  https://stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ Other Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, A Theory of Socialism & Capitalism, Economics & Ethics of Private Property, The Great Fiction (https://hanshoppe.com/publications/) Randy E. Barnett, “Of Chickens and Eggs—The Compatibility of Moral Rights and Consequentialist Analyses,” Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 12 (1989): 611–36, and idem, “Introduction: Liberty vs. License,” in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, 2d ed. (Oxford, 2014) Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value (to invasion of the physical integrity of their property boundaries)

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comAre we all originalists now? Definitely not; originalism has no shortage of critics.But as the latest Term of the U.S. Supreme Court made clear, originalism is the dominant mode of constitutional interpretation at One First Street today. As the justices debate the doctrine's finer theoretical points, such as the proper use of history and tradition, it's clear that the debate is no longer “originalism or not originalism,” but “which originalism” or “whose originalism.”So it's more important than ever to understand the originalist mindset. And if you're looking for help on that front, I have a book recommendation: Professor Randy Barnett's new memoir, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist. As promised by its subtitle, the book provides excellent insight into originalism as a theory—but as an engaging and enjoyable memoir, it's far more fun to read than any casebook or treatise.What drew Randy Barnett to originalism? Why does he view his losses in two landmark Supreme Court cases—Gonzales v. Raich, a Commerce Clause challenge to criminalizing medical marijuana, and NFIB v. Sebelius, a nearly successful effort to topple the Affordable Care Act—as victories of a sort? Why did he decide to write a memoir—and why does he think you should, too? All this and more is revealed—on the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. Show Notes:* Randy E. Barnett bio, Georgetown University Law Center* A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, Amazon* Libertarianism Updated, by Randy E. Barnett for Law & LibertyPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible standards. This panel brings together several of the most formidable constitutional scholars of a generation to discuss natural law and constitutional conservatism alongside Professor Arkes.Featuring:Prof. Hadley P. Arkes, Founder and Director, James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding & Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus, Amherst CollegeProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitModerator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence & Director, James Madison Program, Princeton UniversityOverflow: Chinese Room

Featuring:Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of AmericaProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the ConstitutionProf. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

What is the 9th Amendment? Why does President Biden keep referencing it? How should courts interpret this often-overlooked part of the Bill of Rights? Joining us to answer these questions is Randy E. Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a leading scholar on the Ninth Amendment.  For more insight from Professor Barnett, check out his latest book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. Learn more about our sponsor at www.turnsgnl.com. 

On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The fifth panel discussed "Is Originalism Possible? Historical Indeterminacy."Featuring:Moderator: Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Suzanna Sherry, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Randy E. Barnett, Boston University School of Law Prof. Gary Lawson, Northwestern University School of Law Thomas B. McAffee, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly changed the US constitution, giving the federal judiciary and Congress new powers to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the states. In The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Randy Barnett and Dr. Evan Bernick argue that the Supreme Court has long misunderstood or ignored the original meaning of the amendment's key clauses, covering the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. In fact, they argue that “it is simply not the case that the Court's current Fourteenth Amendment doctrine gives us everything that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment promises.” Dr. Barnett and Dr. Bernick contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was the culmination of decades of debates about the meaning of the antebellum constitution. Antislavery advocates advanced arguments informed by natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the common law. They also utilised what is today called public-meaning originalism. Although their arguments lost in the courts, the Republican Party was formed to advance an antislavery political agenda, eventually bringing about abolition. Then, when abolition alone proved insufficient to thwart Southern repression and provide for civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. It went beyond abolition to enshrine in the Constitution the concept of Republican citizenship and granted Congress power to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality before the law. Finally, Congress used its powers to pass Reconstruction-era civil rights laws that tell us much about the original scope of the amendment. In this book, the authors identified the original meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by examining the evidence from the Founding, from the antebellum period, from the drafting and ratification of the clause, and from the post-ratification interpretations in Congress and by courts and academic commentators. They argue that this mass of evidence shows that “privileges or immunities” encompassed civil rights, as distinguishes from “political” or “social” rights, and included the civil right to impartial treatment by civic institutions.” With attention to primary sources, the book shows how the principles of the Declaration eventually came to modify the Constitution and proposes workable doctrines for implementing the key provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John J. Miller is joined by Randy Barnett to discuss his book, 'The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.'

Aside from the purely legal questions already addressed in this programming series, how should we think about the practical and philosophical questions at stake? Many of us start with the presumption that the social media companies are private businesses and therefore may operate according to viewpoint norms as their owners see fit. But the growing reliance on big tech platforms, combined with the behavior of such platforms in restricting the scope of permissible speech, has raised concerns across the political spectrum, including among those of generally libertarian policy preferences. And the new interest in considering a range of regulatory options is not breaking down along conventional left/right lines. How should we think about these larger philosophical questions? Featuring: -- Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenker LLC-- Genevieve Lakier, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School-- Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center-- William Baude, Professor of Law, Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School-- Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Randy E. Barnett, professor of constitutional law and Georgetown University and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, joins us this week to discuss (what else?) The Constitution of the United States, the 14th Amendment, the controversial 'Privileges and Immunities" clause, and what constitutional law might look like in the future.

On November 12, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Law, Social Justice, Wokeness, and Protests: Where Do We Go From Here?".Historically, the rule of law and the concept of justice it represents supply two key roots of the American experiment. Some think the ideology underlying many of the recent protests challenges this experiment at its core and that its concept of justice arguably differs from that of our Framers. Indeed for some social justice advocates the concepts of the rule of law, justice, reason and discussion all are suspect at best and tools of oppression at worst. Are the protesters who hold this ideology reform minded or revolutionary? Do the critics of this movement underestimate the powerful currents behind the protests? What are possible or desirable responses to this challenge?Featuring:Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolMr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society (representing Prof. John O. McGinnis)Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionModerator: Hon. Kenneth K. Lee, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Jimmy starts off with some thoughts on this weekend's scheduled Aurora protests and the need for police to be able to do their jobs if mayhem breaks out again. He then talks about the Democrats' attack on the USPS postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, and the need to privatize the Post Office - reading from a 2001 issue paper by...Jared Polis Then, he shares an interview from Jimmy at the Crossroads with Georgetown University law professor and Second Amendment legal scholar Randy E. Barnett about the 9th Circuit's significant 2A decision in Duncan v. Becerra.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jimmy starts off with some thoughts on this weekend's scheduled Aurora protests and the need for police to be able to do their jobs if mayhem breaks out again. He then talks about the Democrats' attack on the USPS postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, and the need to privatize the Post Office - reading from a 2001 issue paper by...Jared Polis Then, he shares an interview from Jimmy at the Crossroads with Georgetown University law professor and Second Amendment legal scholar Randy E. Barnett about the 9th Circuit's significant 2A decision in Duncan v. Becerra. See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.

What do you think about these days when you hear the words, “Supreme Court?” Salacious news coverage of the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh? Gushing profiles of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg? High school and vaguely recalled lectures about cases the details of which you dutifully read (or didn't and flunked the test on) like McCulloch v. Maryland or Marbury v. Madison? Or, in this age on the Coronavirus and the sudden need to determine as a citizen what the respective powers of governors and presidents are in times of crisis, are you suddenly aware that a grasp of seemingly arcane terms like “enumerated powers” is imperative for each and every one of us and not just constitutional scholars? Are you suddenly out of a job and thinking now of attending law school and are not sure you could master the material? Have you suddenly found yourself homeschooling a bright late adolescent in need of a text and an associated online resource about the key legal cases that have determined our destiny as a nation and affect virtually every aspect of our individual lives? Do you simply want a solid but approachable book that provides vignettes of crucial moments of American legal, social and political history? Want to know under what pretexts a local government can seize your house? Have I got the book and online study guide for you: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know (Wolter Kluwer, 2019) by Josh Blackman and Randy E. Barnett—published in 2019. Randy Barnett is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time. He and his co-author Blackman have boiled down to a handy hundred what they believe are the cases that most matter—some of which are notorious (or what they term, “anti-canonical”). Let's see if you agree with their picks. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do you think about these days when you hear the words, “Supreme Court?” Salacious news coverage of the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh? Gushing profiles of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg? High school and vaguely recalled lectures about cases the details of which you dutifully read (or didn’t and flunked the test on) like McCulloch v. Maryland or Marbury v. Madison? Or, in this age on the Coronavirus and the sudden need to determine as a citizen what the respective powers of governors and presidents are in times of crisis, are you suddenly aware that a grasp of seemingly arcane terms like “enumerated powers” is imperative for each and every one of us and not just constitutional scholars? Are you suddenly out of a job and thinking now of attending law school and are not sure you could master the material? Have you suddenly found yourself homeschooling a bright late adolescent in need of a text and an associated online resource about the key legal cases that have determined our destiny as a nation and affect virtually every aspect of our individual lives? Do you simply want a solid but approachable book that provides vignettes of crucial moments of American legal, social and political history? Want to know under what pretexts a local government can seize your house? Have I got the book and online study guide for you: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know (Wolter Kluwer, 2019) by Josh Blackman and Randy E. Barnett—published in 2019. Randy Barnett is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time. He and his co-author Blackman have boiled down to a handy hundred what they believe are the cases that most matter—some of which are notorious (or what they term, “anti-canonical”). Let’s see if you agree with their picks. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do you think about these days when you hear the words, “Supreme Court?” Salacious news coverage of the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh? Gushing profiles of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg? High school and vaguely recalled lectures about cases the details of which you dutifully read (or didn’t and flunked the test on) like McCulloch v. Maryland or Marbury v. Madison? Or, in this age on the Coronavirus and the sudden need to determine as a citizen what the respective powers of governors and presidents are in times of crisis, are you suddenly aware that a grasp of seemingly arcane terms like “enumerated powers” is imperative for each and every one of us and not just constitutional scholars? Are you suddenly out of a job and thinking now of attending law school and are not sure you could master the material? Have you suddenly found yourself homeschooling a bright late adolescent in need of a text and an associated online resource about the key legal cases that have determined our destiny as a nation and affect virtually every aspect of our individual lives? Do you simply want a solid but approachable book that provides vignettes of crucial moments of American legal, social and political history? Want to know under what pretexts a local government can seize your house? Have I got the book and online study guide for you: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know (Wolter Kluwer, 2019) by Josh Blackman and Randy E. Barnett—published in 2019. Randy Barnett is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time. He and his co-author Blackman have boiled down to a handy hundred what they believe are the cases that most matter—some of which are notorious (or what they term, “anti-canonical”). Let’s see if you agree with their picks. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do you think about these days when you hear the words, “Supreme Court?” Salacious news coverage of the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh? Gushing profiles of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg? High school and vaguely recalled lectures about cases the details of which you dutifully read (or didn’t and flunked the test on) like McCulloch v. Maryland or Marbury v. Madison? Or, in this age on the Coronavirus and the sudden need to determine as a citizen what the respective powers of governors and presidents are in times of crisis, are you suddenly aware that a grasp of seemingly arcane terms like “enumerated powers” is imperative for each and every one of us and not just constitutional scholars? Are you suddenly out of a job and thinking now of attending law school and are not sure you could master the material? Have you suddenly found yourself homeschooling a bright late adolescent in need of a text and an associated online resource about the key legal cases that have determined our destiny as a nation and affect virtually every aspect of our individual lives? Do you simply want a solid but approachable book that provides vignettes of crucial moments of American legal, social and political history? Want to know under what pretexts a local government can seize your house? Have I got the book and online study guide for you: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know (Wolter Kluwer, 2019) by Josh Blackman and Randy E. Barnett—published in 2019. Randy Barnett is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time. He and his co-author Blackman have boiled down to a handy hundred what they believe are the cases that most matter—some of which are notorious (or what they term, “anti-canonical”). Let’s see if you agree with their picks. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do you think about these days when you hear the words, “Supreme Court?” Salacious news coverage of the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh? Gushing profiles of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg? High school and vaguely recalled lectures about cases the details of which you dutifully read (or didn’t and flunked the test on) like McCulloch v. Maryland or Marbury v. Madison? Or, in this age on the Coronavirus and the sudden need to determine as a citizen what the respective powers of governors and presidents are in times of crisis, are you suddenly aware that a grasp of seemingly arcane terms like “enumerated powers” is imperative for each and every one of us and not just constitutional scholars? Are you suddenly out of a job and thinking now of attending law school and are not sure you could master the material? Have you suddenly found yourself homeschooling a bright late adolescent in need of a text and an associated online resource about the key legal cases that have determined our destiny as a nation and affect virtually every aspect of our individual lives? Do you simply want a solid but approachable book that provides vignettes of crucial moments of American legal, social and political history? Want to know under what pretexts a local government can seize your house? Have I got the book and online study guide for you: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know (Wolter Kluwer, 2019) by Josh Blackman and Randy E. Barnett—published in 2019. Randy Barnett is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time. He and his co-author Blackman have boiled down to a handy hundred what they believe are the cases that most matter—some of which are notorious (or what they term, “anti-canonical”). Let’s see if you agree with their picks. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do you think about these days when you hear the words, “Supreme Court?” Salacious news coverage of the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh? Gushing profiles of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg? High school and vaguely recalled lectures about cases the details of which you dutifully read (or didn’t and flunked the test on) like McCulloch v. Maryland or Marbury v. Madison? Or, in this age on the Coronavirus and the sudden need to determine as a citizen what the respective powers of governors and presidents are in times of crisis, are you suddenly aware that a grasp of seemingly arcane terms like “enumerated powers” is imperative for each and every one of us and not just constitutional scholars? Are you suddenly out of a job and thinking now of attending law school and are not sure you could master the material? Have you suddenly found yourself homeschooling a bright late adolescent in need of a text and an associated online resource about the key legal cases that have determined our destiny as a nation and affect virtually every aspect of our individual lives? Do you simply want a solid but approachable book that provides vignettes of crucial moments of American legal, social and political history? Want to know under what pretexts a local government can seize your house? Have I got the book and online study guide for you: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know (Wolter Kluwer, 2019) by Josh Blackman and Randy E. Barnett—published in 2019. Randy Barnett is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time. He and his co-author Blackman have boiled down to a handy hundred what they believe are the cases that most matter—some of which are notorious (or what they term, “anti-canonical”). Let’s see if you agree with their picks. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With much of the country under stay-at-home orders due to COVID-19, what do these orders mean for the five freedoms of the First Amendment? On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, host Nico Perrino and constitutional law expert Josh Blackman will break it all down. Blackman is a professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston and the author of three books, including his recently co-authored book with Professor Randy E. Barnett, “An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know.” Show notes: Podcast transcript John Adams’ second annual address to Congress, December 8, 1798 “The Right to Protest During the Pandemic,” National Coalition Against Censorship coalition statement “Are Quarantine Orders Constitutional?,” by Mark Miller, Pacific Legal Foundation “If Liquor Stores Are Essential, Why Isn’t Church?,” by Michael W. McConnell and Max Raskin First Amendment News 251: Public health and the First Amendment in the age of COVID-19 www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The first panel discussed "Originalism and Stare Decisis".Sometimes the original meaning of the Constitution conflicts with or points in a different direction from the Supreme Court's precedents. When that happens, what is the role of stare decisis? To what extent is stare decisis consistent with or at odds with originalism? What should an originalist Court do with non-originalist precedent? What exactly does stare decisis commit a court to follow? Do the Supreme Court’s past practices or its duty to follow its precedents differ from inferior courts’ duty to heed Supreme Court decisions? *******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law CenterRandy J. Kozel, Notre Dame Law SchoolJohn O. McGinnis, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyIntroduction: Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Director, Faculty Division, The Federalist Society

On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The first panel discussed "Originalism and Stare Decisis".Sometimes the original meaning of the Constitution conflicts with or points in a different direction from the Supreme Court's precedents. When that happens, what is the role of stare decisis? To what extent is stare decisis consistent with or at odds with originalism? What should an originalist Court do with non-originalist precedent? What exactly does stare decisis commit a court to follow? Do the Supreme Court’s past practices or its duty to follow its precedents differ from inferior courts’ duty to heed Supreme Court decisions? *******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law CenterRandy J. Kozel, Notre Dame Law SchoolJohn O. McGinnis, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyIntroduction: Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Director, Faculty Division, The Federalist Society

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

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

If the Constitution were interpreted according to its original meaning, how libertarian would that Constitution be? How do we decide what the original meaning of the Constitution is?Randy E. Barnett explains why popular sovereignty resides in individuals rather than in any notion of “the will of the people.”What would America look like if judges interpreted the Constitution according to the original intent of the Founders?Show Notes and Further ReadingHere is Barnett’s latest book, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People (2016).He also mentions his book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2013).Here’s an earlier episode of Free Thoughts featuring Randy Barnett, “The Structure of Liberty.”Trevor mentions the previous Free Thoughts episode with Gary Gerstle on his book Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government from the Founding to the Present (2015). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Full event here: https://www.cato.org/events/our-republican-constitution-securing-liberty-sovereignty-we-people The Constitution begins with the words “We the People.” But from our earliest days there have been two competing notions of “the People,” leading to two very different constitutional visions. Those who view “We the People” collectively think popular sovereignty resides in the people as a group, which leads them to favor a democratic constitution that allows the will of the people to be expressed by majority rule. In contrast, those who think popular sovereignty resides in the people as individuals contend that a republican constitution is needed to secure the preexisting inalienable rights of “We the People,” each and every one, against abuses by the majority. In his latest book, with a foreword by George Will, Randy Barnett explains why “We the People” would greatly benefit from the renewal of our republican Constitution, and how this can be accomplished in the courts and the political arena.

June 2016 featuring Ian Vásquez, Pedro Mario Burelli, Randy E. Barnett, Andrew Bacevich, Jerry Brito, Randy Bateman See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What kind of constitution does the U.S. really have? Randy E. Barnett makes his case in Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

September 2014 featuring Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, Richard Kovacevich, Randy E. Barnett, Rep. Ted Poe, Sidney Powell, Brian Doherty See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

September 27, 2012 Randy E. Barnett Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory Georgetown Law Center

September 2012 featuring Trevor Burrus, Jim Harper, Randy E. Barnett, Ginger McCall, Sen. Ron Wyden, Steven Landsburg See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.