FedSoc Blog

Arthur Brooks to Speak on The Moral Foundations of Capitalism

Avatar

by Publius
Posted November 29, 2011, 5:28 PM

The Federalist Society's Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter invites you to to its monthly D.C. Luncheon Tuesday, December 6, 2011.

Arthur Books, President of The American Enterprise Institute, will speaking on "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism."

Details below:

DATE: Tuesday, December 6, 2011
TIME: 12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m.  

LOCATION:  Tony Cheng's Restaurant,  619 H Street NW (Gallery Place Metro) 

COST: $15 for members, $20 for guests  

Space is limited.

Please click here to register online; you may pay at the door if you register online.

Categories: Upcoming Events

Two New “Engage” Articles on Criminal Law & Procedure

Avatar

by Paul Zimmerman
Posted November 28, 2011, 4:02 PM

Today the Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group released two new articles from the next issue of FedSoc's journal "Engage."

In the first article, "A Comprehensive Strategy Targeting Recidivist Criminals with Continuous Real-Time GPS Monitoring: Is Reverse Engineering Crime Control Possible?," Peter M. Thomson examines whether a comprehensive crime control strategy using advances in GPS technology might reduce the recidivist criminal's ability to relapse into prior criminal conduct, and he discusses the constitutional and public policy issues surrounding such a strategy.  The article is especially timely considering the Supreme Court's recent hearing of United States v. Jones, in which the Court is asked to decide whether police may place a GPS tracking device on a person's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

In the second article, "Honest Services Fraud After Skilling v. United States," Steven Wisotsky discusses judicial responses to federal prosecutors' use of the mail fraud statute to crack down on so-called "honest services" fraud following the Supreme Court's recent ruling that the "honest services" component of the statute only extends to bribery and kickback schemes.

FedSoc 2012 Student Symposium Now Open for Registration

Avatar

by Publius,
Posted November 25, 2011, 1:57 PM

Registration for The Federalist Society's 2012 Student Symposium is now open.  The conference will be held at Stanford Law School on March 2nd and 3rd.  The theme is “Bureaucracy Unbound: Can Limited Government and the Administrative State Co-Exist?”  For more information, including regarding lodging how to register, click here.

Below is the current line-up:

Friday 

1:00–4:30 p.m.: Registration
Hoover Lawn

6:45 p.m.: Introductory Remarks
Cemex Auditorium

7:00 p.m. - 8:45 p.m.: Panel 1: The Rule of Law and the Administrative State
Cemex Auditorium

The rule of law, whatever that term describes, is one of the central concepts in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Does the administrative state, either in its operation or in the legal moves necessary for its validation, undermine or support the rule of law? Does modern governmental administration, and modern conditions of life, require some redefinition of the rule of law? Is there a relationship between the rule of law and the separation of powers, and if so, how does the administrative state affect that relationship? This panel, in short, will explore how the administrative state relates to fundamental jurisprudential principles.

Panelists:
David Barron, Harvard Law School
Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Peter Shane, The Ohio State University Law School

Moderator:
Judge Carlos Bea, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

9:00 p.m.- 10:30 p.m.: Cocktail Reception
Rehnquist Courtyard

Saturday

8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.: Continental Breakfast
Cemex Lawn

9:00 a.m.- 10:45 a.m.: Panel 2: Balancing Checks and Efficiency: Gridlock, Organized Interests, and Regulatory Capture

The administrative state is often defended as a necessary response to modern conditions that make governance through ordinary legislation virtually impossible. Is the administrative process in fact more efficient than legislation (and what is meant in this context by “efficient”)? Do any benefits from the administrative process come at the expense of other values? If the legislative process is subject to gridlock, is gridlock all bad? If capture or influence by interest groups is a problem, is it likely to be a worse problem in agency or legislative settings?

Does congressional abdication contribute to bureaucratic sclerosis, which makes it difficult to start and maintain businesses? Finally, what role do the Court's doctrines play at the intersection of these questions? Is Chevron deference to agencies good? Does the president's control make the administrative state better or worse? Do the Court's doctrines in Bowsher and Chadha give agencies too much power?

Panelists:
David Engstrom, Stanford Law School
C. Boyden Gray, Former White House Counsel
Lisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University School of Law
Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School

Moderator:
Dean Larry Kramer, Stanford Law School

11:00 a.m.- 1:00 p.m.: Panel 3: Czars, Libya, and Recent Developments: Perspectives on Executive Power

This panel will address the role of Executive branch officials in making high-level policy decisions, and their relationship to Congress. This is particularly relevant in the context of two recent debates: can the President ignore congressional attempts to strip funding from high-level officials who are not confirmed by the Senate? Is the Obama administration’s use of “czars” constitutional? Moreover, what is the power of the Executive branch to start a war without any authorization from Congress?

Panelists:
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Stanford Law School
John Harrison, University of Virginia Law School
Sandy Levinson, University of Texas Law School
John Yoo, Berkeley Law School

Moderator:
Judge Thomas Griffith, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

1:00 p.m.- 2:30 p.m.: Lunch
Cemex Lawn

2:30 p.m. -3:45 p.m.: Debate: The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
Cemex Auditorium

This debate will focus on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. While specific attention will be given to administrative law issues, including the constitutionality of giving out compliance waivers and of medical expert boards, the discussion will be free-ranging and address all constitutional questions of interest.

Debaters:
Randy Barnett, Georgetown University School of Law
Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School
Moderator:
Judge Sandra Ikuta, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

4:00 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Technology and Regulation
Cemex Auditorium

Being in Silicon Valley, Stanford is known for its strong focus on intellectual property law and technology more broadly. This panel seeks to ask: what is the relationship between technology and the administrative state? Does technological progress require regulatory guidance? This panel will also consider to what degree development in technology in recent years has been slower than anticipated and whether the administrative state has been an asset or a hindrance to the effective utilization of technology.

Panelists:
Anthony Falzone, Stanford Center for Internet and Society
Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School
Peter Thiel, President, Clarium Capital
Ted Ullyot, General Counsel, Facebook

Moderator:
TBD

6:00-7:00 p.m.: Cocktail Reception
Arrillaga Center for Sports and Recreation

7:00-10:00 p.m.: Banquet
Arrillaga Center for Sports and Recreation

Keynote Address: To Be Announced

 

 

 

Categories: Upcoming Events

The ABA Has Secretly Declared Many Obama Judicial Nominees “Not Qualified”

Avatar

by Justin Shubow
Posted November 22, 2011, 4:32 PM

The New York Times today revealed that the American Bar Association has deemed the Obama administration's judicial nominations "not qualified" both disproportionately more and in greater numbers than in previous administrations:

The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified,” slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships — and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of an ethnic minority group, according to interviews.

The White House has chosen not to nominate any person the bar association deemed unqualified, so the negative ratings have not been made public. But the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.

That outcome has added a new twist to a long-running friction in the politics of judicial nominations. During recent Republican administrations, conservatives have made political hay of accusing the A.B.A. of bias against conservative potential judges. In 2001, President Bush stopped sending the group names of prospects before he selected them, so the panel instead rated them after their nomination. In 2009, Mr. Obama restored the panel’s role in the pre-nomination selection process, which dates to the Eisenhower administration.

Categories: External Articles

New “Engage” Article: The Human Rights Governance Networks “Matrix”

Avatar

by Paul Zimmerman
Posted November 22, 2011, 12:57 PM

The latest issue of the FedSoc journal Engage features an article by James P. Kelly III, who notes that human rights activists are now using a "matrix" of governance networks to pursue recognition of economic rights (such as the rights to housing and health) in developing countries.  He goes on to describe how this strategy is currently affecting multinational businesses.

New SCOTUScast: Golan v. Holder

Avatar

by SCOTUScaster
Posted November 18, 2011, 4:22 PM

On October 5, the Supreme Court heard the oral argument in Golan v. Holder, which examined whether Congress has the power to restore copyright protection to works that have entered the public domain.

We have Christopher Newman to discuss the case.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

Categories: SCOTUScasts

Bush and Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars?

Avatar

by Justin Shubow
Posted November 17, 2011, 5:51 PM

Tomorrow in D.C., Ralph Nader and the Center for Study of Responsive Law will host a public debate on the subject: Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s actions: war crimes or lawful wars?  The debate is the third in their "Debating Taboos" series, which

aims to bring attention to civic issues so controversial or taboo they have rarely, if ever, addressed in the media, legislative bodies or the electoral arena.

Each debate will feature prominent public advocates who will take opposing viewpoints, and a knowledgeable and nimble moderator to keep the pace quick and substantive. No clinching, no evasion, no wheel spinning.

The organization encourages the public to submit ideas for future debate topics.

Here's the line-up for the debate, which is free and open to the public.

Debaters arguing for the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes

Bruce Fein is an attorney and constitutional scholar, and has consulted foreign nations on matters ranging from constitutional revision to telecommunications and cable regulation, and human rights. He appears regularly on national and international television, cable, and radio programs as an expert in foreign affairs, terrorism, national security, and has testified over 200 times before Congressional committees.

Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer is a highly experienced U.S. Army intelligence officer, and is nationally known as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) for intelligence collection and policy, terrorism, data mining, situational awareness and adaptive/disruptive technologies. He is also a senior advisor to multiple organizations on terrorism and counterinsurgency issues and a member of the US Nuclear Strategy Forum.

Debaters arguing against the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes

David B. Rivkin is a member of Baker & Hostetler Law Firm’s litigation, international and environmental groups and co-chairs the firm’s appellate and major motions team. He served in the White House Counsel’s office and the Department of Justice under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Prior to embarking on a legal career, Mr. Rivkin worked as a defense and foreign policy analyst, focusing on Soviet affairs, arms control, naval strategy and NATO-related issues, and served as a defense consultant to numerous government agencies and Washington think tanks.

Lee Casey a partner at Baker & Hostetler, focuses on federal environmental, constitutional and international law and Alien Tort Statute issues. He served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He also advises clients on compliance issues under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), U.S. trade sanctions regimes, and federal ethics requirements. Mr. Casey’s practice includes federal, district and appellate court litigation, as well as matters before federal agencies. From 2004 through 2007 he served as a member of the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Moderators

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues. He also is a nationally recognized legal commentator.

Stuart S. Taylor is a lawyer, author and freelance journalist focusing on legal and policy issues, a “National Journal” contributing editor, and a Brookings Institution nonresident fellow. He has written many columns on this issue and has co-authored a piece titled “Looking Forward, Not Backward: Refining American Interrogation Law” through the Brookings Institution.

When: Friday, November 18, 2011 at 12:30 p.m.
What: Bush/Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars?
Where: 1530 P St NW, Washington, DC – Carnegie Institution building
Contact: Katherine Raymond, 202-387-8030, kraymond@csrl.org

Categories: Upcoming Events

Debate on Civil Rights and Voter Fraud Draws Attention

Avatar

by Justin Shubow
Posted November 16, 2011, 12:48 PM

The Federalist Societ'y recent National Lawyers Convention continues to receive a lot of press. The blog of Legal Times, for instance, highlighted the panel debate on civil rights and voter fraud:

A panel of long-time election watchers debated the extent and severity of voter fraud in the United States on Friday, as part of the Federalist Society's annual National Lawyers Convention.

Moderated by U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, the four panelists sparred over whether requiring photo identification would help or hurt the election process.

Griffith said that allegations of election fraud have been part of the political conversation for centuries in the United States, but that advances in technology - the rise of electronic voting systems, for instance - and shifts in policy mean "these issues are not only a matter of history."

Former Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund advocated in favor of requiring voters to show a valid government ID at the polls. Photo IDs are necessary to access any number of services, Fund said, so the rules contribute to the greater good. Citing the example of several state and local elections that were decided by a small number of votes in close elections, he said, “voter fraud can make a difference.”

Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law served as the panel’s dissenting voice. Minorities and lower-income Americans are less likely to have photos IDs and could be discouraged from voting by such rules, he said, warning against conflating voter fraud with incompetence in how elections are managed. Tokaji said that reports of voter fraud, especially duplicate voting – where one person votes in the name of another at the polls – are “exaggerated.”

Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow and manager at the Heritage Foundation, said requiring IDs at the polls would not only stop duplicate voting, but would also make it harder for undocumented immigrants to vote as well. Spakovsky noted that in Rhode Island, which recently adopted a photo ID requirement, the measure was supported by a Democratic state legislature.

George Washington University Law School Professor Spencer Overton said requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls is inevitable, but the debate should be over what type of identification and, if photo IDs are required, whether there are ways to allow eligible voters without a photo ID to vote. Overton drew groans from a disapproving crowd when he proposed a hypothetical compromise to Fund – require photo IDs but allow same-day voter registration.

All four panelists agreed that requiring a photo ID at the polls wouldn’t stop some forms of voter fraud, such as absentee voting fraud, and also that election systems across the country suffer from mismanagement and partisanship.

The blog also discussed the debate at the convention over the constitutionality of Obama's health care law.

Categories: External Articles

Video of Paul Clement and Laurence Tribe Debating Obamacare Now Online

Avatar

by Publius
Posted November 14, 2011, 4:30 PM

The Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate and Luncheon was held on November 12 at The Federalist Society's 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The topic was "RESOLVED: Congress Acted Within Its Authority in Enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."  Debating were Prof. Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement of Bancroft PLLC.  Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Georgetown Law Center moderated. Gene Federalist Society President Gene Meyer introduced the debate.

Harvard Law Professor Refuses to Sign Academic Friend-of-Court Brief Defending Obamacare

Avatar

by Justin Shubow
Posted November 14, 2011, 3:14 PM

The New York Times reports that Harvard law professor Richard H. Fallon has refused to sign a "scholarly" amicus brief defending the constitutionality of Obamacare.  He went so far as to criticize amicus briefs by law professors generally:

Not long ago, a law professor at Harvard received a routine request. Would he add his name to a brief from a group of law professors urging a federal court to uphold the health care overhaul law?

The professor, Richard H. Fallon Jr., said he would not, and his assessment of what he had been asked to sign was cutting.

“Its argumentation fell within the bounds of what lawyers could permissibly say in a brief,” he wrote in a provocative draft essay that has been circulating in the legal academy. But the brief’s presentation of the historical evidence, he said, “was not nuanced or balanced.”

“A purportedly scholarly book or article that asserted its claims without further qualification,” he wrote, “would attract derision as one-sided if not misleading.”

The health care brief was just an example of a larger problem, Professor Fallon wrote, one of role confusion between scholarship and advocacy. “Many scholars’ briefs are actually not very scholarly,” he wrote.

Categories: External Articles

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Obamacare Cases

Avatar

by Justin Shubow
Posted November 14, 2011, 11:12 AM

The Supreme Court just granted certioriari to the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--a/k/a "Obamacare."  The timing could not be better.  On Saturday, at the Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate and Luncheon at The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, former solicitor general Paul Clement and Professor Laurence Tribe debated the very question.  It was truly a preview of coming attractions since Clement will be arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

At Above the Law, David Lat provides a summary of their debate, which was moderated by Professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz:

Professor Tribe began by providing some background on the Act. It was signed into law in March 2010 and represented Congress’s attempt to tackle the health care crisis — a crisis that involves some 17 percent of our GDP. He pointed out that health care is unlike other markets because hospitals don’t turn away patients, which means that the health care costs of the uninsured effectively get passed along to everyone else.

The “individual mandate” provision of the Act attempts to encourage coverage by imposing a tax penalty on people who do not buy health insurance. This provision will (1) encourage people to purchase coverage and (2) raise revenue from the people who don’t. It provides an incentive for people to acquire health insurance in advance of when they will actually need care, which is more efficient and effective than the status quo. We know that pretty much everyone will need health care at some point in their lives, so why should we wait until they get injured or sick before we deal with the problem?

Tribe noted, with approval, the decisions by the Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit upholding the validity of the Act. He noted that distinguished conservative jurists such as Judge Jeffrey Sutton (6th Cir.) and Judge Laurence Silberman (D.C. Cir.) have written in defense of the law. He added that even the Eleventh Circuit, which struck down the individual mandate, conceded that the federal government can regulate health care at the time the patient seeks care (because at that point there is indisputably some “commerce” to be regulated).

Opponents of the Act argue that this is like United States v. Lopez, where the Court struck down a law prohibiting people from carrying guns near schools, finding a lack of economic activity. But it is an “economic activity,” according to Tribe, to make other people pay for your health care — which is what ends up happening under the status quo, without the Act.

Tribe concluded his opening remarks by addressing the “slippery slope” arguments made by opponents of the law. He noted that the Act does not force anyone to have any particular medical procedure or change their lifestyle in any particular way (think of the hypotheticals involving government-mandated broccoli consumption). In any event, if it did attempt to do such things, substantive due process concerns would block it.

(This was a Federalist Society event, so substantive due process might not have been the best doctrine to invoke by way of reassurance. But you get his point.)

Clement began his response by emphasizing the “mandate” part of the “individual mandate”: the Act actually orders people to buy health care insurance, a mandate that it happens to enforce with a tax penalty. Even people who are not subject to the penalty — e.g., because they fall below a certain income threshold — are still subject to the mandate (at least as a theoretical matter).

In terms of the relevant market, it should be thought of not as the market for health care, but the market for health care insurance — which people are being forced to buy. They are being forced to purchase it even if they could get by without it. (Maybe you can’t get away without using health care — set aside, for now, Christian Scientists, hermits hiding in the woods, etc. — but you can certainly get away without using health insurance, as millions of people currently do.)

With these observations in mind, what is the Act doing? It is forcing someone to engage in commerce, not regulating commerce that already exists. If this Act is constitutional, according to Clement, the nothing lies beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause — a violation of our federal system, in which the federal government has specific, enumerated powers, not plenary power that touches upon all things.

Under the current system, if you want to avoid federal regulatory power over commerce, you can exercise your right to refrain from engaging in the commerce at issue. Under the Act, however, the federal government can force you to engage in a specific kind of commerce — and then, conveniently enough, regulate that which it has forced you to do.

The primary question with respect to the Act, repeatedly emphasized by Clement throughout the debate, is the following: “What is the limiting principle?” If you look at the Supreme Court’s past Commerce Clause cases, such as Lopez and Morrison, you see that the federal government loses when it can’t state a limiting principle.

If the Act is constitutional, what are the remaining limits on the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause? If we can force people to buy health insurance, why can’t we force them to buy wheat (cf. Wickard v. Filburn), or force them to buy cars (cf. cash for clunkers)?

In short, Clement concluded, the Act must be struck down. First, it violates the prerogatives of states and the limited nature of federal power (note that Clement represents 26 states challenging the law). Second, it violates individual liberty, by forcing people to engage in commerce against their will. Third, it violates principles of political accountability: if the government wants to raise taxes, which it could be argued is what is really going on here, it should be forced to do so openly and explicitly. (Note how President Obama, in selling the law, denied that it was a tax increase — even though federal government lawyers, subsequently defending the Act, relied in part upon the government’s taxing power.)

In his rebuttal, Tribe questioned whether there was really a difference between “regulating” commerce and “forcing” commerce — i.e., in the process of regulating, the government forces citizens to do certain things. He also emphasized, in a line of reasoning that might appeal to Federalist Society-types, how much political will it takes to pass a law like Obamacare. (In other words, maybe you might not like the Act as a policy matter, but if that’s your problem, you should defeat it through the political process.)

Tribe also noted an interesting point made by Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit (who ultimately found no jurisdiction to rule on Obamacare at the current time, pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act). Judge Kavanaugh noted that the health care law would be clearly constitutional if, instead of “mandating” the purchase of health insurance, it simply operated as nothing more than a tax penalty, telling the citizen, “It’s your choice: you can purchase health insurance, or you can take a hit come tax time.” In Tribe’s view, this is really what the Act effectively does, and so it should be upheld for this reason.

Clement responded by agreeing that yes, there are constitutional ways to achieve the same policy goals as the Act — which is all the more reason why the Constitution should be respected, and the Act should be struck down and then passed in a form that would pass constitutional muster. (Of course, given the current composition of Congress — which changed significantly after the Act was signed into law in March 2010, thanks to the midterm elections — that’s not terribly likely.)

Who won the debate? It depends on how you score it. Clement was the more skillful debater — he’s had a lot of practice, arguing against the Act in the lower courts — but Tribe made many strong points as well, and I came away from the debate thinking that SCOTUS will probably uphold the Act.

This is a view shared by a number of observers, such as Professor (and former Kennedy clerk) Orin Kerr, who told Joan Biskupic of USA Today that he thinks AMK will vote to uphold, based on his prior writings. And it makes a certain amount of sense based on reading the circuit-court tea leaves; well-respected conservative jurists like Judges Sutton and Silberman have voted in favor of the Act.

But, of course, the Supreme Court isn’t bound by its own Commerce Clause precedents in the way that lower courts are bound by them. And thanks to Clement’s excellent advocacy, I now realize the question posed to SCOTUS is far closer than I originally thought. It will be very interesting to see how the justices rule — and very interesting to see the political consequences of their ruling, which should come a few short months before the 2012 presidential election.

Categories: Multimedia, SCOTUSreport

Senator Marco Rubio’s Address at FedSoc’s National Lawyers Convention, 11-10-11

Avatar

by Publius
Posted November 12, 2011, 11:34 AM

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida spoke at The Federalist Society's 2011 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 10, 2011. He was introduced by Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.

Categories: Event Audio / Video

Michael Mukasey Speaks About Islam and Democracy

Avatar

by Justin Shubow
Posted November 11, 2011, 6:09 PM

Speaking at the Federalist Society's 2011 Natioinal Lawyers Convention, former attorney general Michael Mukasey spoke about the challenge of fighting Islamic terrorism.  Discussing the relationship among, Sharia, Islam, and democracy, he recommended Abdullah Saeed's article "The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty," which appears in the November edition of First Things magazine. Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, Saeed begins:

The words of the Qur’an and hadith contain rich resources for supporting the democratic order. If Muslims are to embrace modernity, including life in a pluralistic, democratic society, without abandoning their faith, they must take up the argument for religious liberty that is embedded in their history and that stands at the center of their most sacred texts.

Although the broad thrust of the Qur’an and hadith supports religious liberty, many parts of these texts can be, and traditionally have been, interpreted as denying it.

Categories: Upcoming Events

FedSoc National Lawyers Convention Now Underway in D.C.

Avatar

by Publius
Posted November 10, 2011, 11:46 AM

The Federalist Society's 2011 National Lawyers Convention is now underway in Washington, D.C.  Senator Marco Rubio is currently speaking.

You can follow his and other speaker's remarks on the live Twitter feed: @fedsoc #fedsoc11 .

Categories: Upcoming Events

Upcoming FedSoc Panel in New York on Nation-Building

Avatar

by Publius
Posted November 07, 2011, 7:05 PM

Nation Building: When Can and Should the United States Do It?

The New York Lawyers Chapter  
Invites You to a Reception and Discussion Featuring:
 
Max Boot
Former Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations and Author, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power
 
Andrew Kent
Associate Professor of National Security Law and Constitutional Law, Fordham University School of Law
 
and
 
Michael A. Newton
Professor of the Practice of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School, and Former Advisor, Iraqi High Tribunal
 
Date: Monday, November 21, 2011
 
Time:
Reception 6:00 p.m.
Program 7:00 p.m.
 
Location:
The Cornell Club
6 East 44th Street
New York, NY
 
Refreshments will be served.
This event is free of charge and open to the public. No reservations are required.
 
For more information, contact Mark Schuman at 212-578-9043 or by email at mschuman18@gmail.com.

Categories: External Articles

Search

Categories

Archives

Originally Speaking Debate Archive

Blog Roll