1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution
November 18 — 20, 2010We have come a long way since the framing of the Constitution when our Founding Fathers struggled with the question of how to install a government strong enough to govern and limited enough to leave the people with the maximum practical degree of freedom. That question is perennial and highlighted by recent events. Indeed, some of our citizens recalled the passions that led to independence and the Constitution by forming tea parties. That movement today is seeking ways to limit government in practice. At the same time, other forces view such proposals as not only impractical, but undesirable. Some believe that elites need to help the people to avoid many of the problems and pitfalls of society. Others take a more Burkean view about the leavening of direct democracy. Many interesting questions arise here, and we hope to explore them through four Showcase panels which address attempts to limit government and also include some discussion of the dangers and problems of the people exercising overly direct control of the government.
Back to top2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Federalist Society • Separation of Powers • Supreme Court |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Civil Rights • Constitution • Separation of Powers • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
The Federal government’s power has vastly increased over the history of the Republic. To what degree do enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment still limit the power of Congress? Could each chamber of Congress create a Committee on the Tenth Amendment that would have to approve bills for constitutionality before they could be considered on the floor? Are there constitutional amendments that are needed to rein in federal power? A Balanced Budget Amendment, for example, or an amendment requiring super-majorities to pass spending or tax bills? How about a constitutional amendment requiring that the budget of the United States be prepared every two years and that it be subject to popular approval at presidential or midterm elections?
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Politics |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Criminal Law & Procedure • Federalism • Separation of Powers • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Healthcare • Litigation |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Corporations, Securities & Antitrust • Federalism • Financial Services • Federalism & Separation of Powers • Financial Services & E-Commerce |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Due Process • Federal Courts • First Amendment • Fourteenth Amendment • Professional Responsibility & Legal Education • State Courts • Supreme Court • Free Speech & Election Law |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Intellectual Property • Property Law |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Federalism • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Civil Rights • Constitution • Federalism • Security & Privacy • State Governments • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Federalist Society • Supreme Court |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Civil Rights • Constitution • Culture • Federalism • Politics • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
Direct democracy is feasible today to an extent that it was not feasible in 1787. Does that change the calculus in choosing between direct democracy and representation? What lessons, positive or negative, can be learned from the state experience with initiatives and referenda? Should Congress set up a system of national initiatives and referenda? Can Congress delegate its legislative power to the American people without violating the nondelegation doctrine? Should national initiatives and referenda be binding or merely advisory? Would it be acceptable for a national referendum to alter a law so as to effectively reverse a Supreme Court decision? Should the health care law be subject to such a referendum? Should increases in the national debt or in taxes be subject to voter approval?
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Financial Services • Financial Services & E-Commerce |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Labor & Employment Law |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Education Policy • First Amendment • Religious Liberty • Supreme Court • Free Speech & Election Law • Religious Liberties |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Federal Courts • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Federalism • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Foreign Policy • International Law & Trade • International & National Security Law |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • First Amendment • Security & Privacy • Free Speech & Election Law |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Constitution • Culture • Federal Courts • Federalist Society • Founding Era & History |
---|
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2010, Judge Dennis G. Jacobs of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delivered the lecture.
For information about Barbara Olson and this lecture series, click HERE.
For a list of past lecturers, click HERE.
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Civil Rights • Contracts • Founding Era & History • Litigation • Philosophy • Politics |
---|
Americans historically have favored equality of opportunity and liberty with the knowledge that willingness to expose oneself to risk yields greater rewards for success and greater penalties for failure than are available under European style democratic socialism. In recent years, the role of the government in mitigating risk has expanded in a wide variety of areas: tort and contract law, health law, financial institutions, the auto industry and hurricane insurance, among others. How ought Americans to balance equality, liberty, and risk? Is America’s historical preference for risk and liberty a function of the frontier aspects of our history? Is this expanded role of government the necessary consequence of democracy over time? Or is it possible or desirable to reverse that expansion and, if so, how can it be done?
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Telecommunications & Electronic Media |
---|
Address
Panel
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Environmental & Energy Law • Property Law • Separation of Powers • Federalism & Separation of Powers • Environmental Law & Property Rights |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Telecommunications & Electronic Media |
---|
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Civil Rights • Constitution • Federalism • First Amendment • Fourteenth Amendment • Religious Liberty • State Governments • Federalism & Separation of Powers • Religious Liberties |
---|
A Debate on the Constitutionality of Proposition 8
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Constitution • Federal Courts • Founding Era & History • Separation of Powers • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
---|
Are there structural ways that are practically plausible to limit or reduce the power of government? Or will any such efforts only be possible on a case-by-case basis? Two possible areas for structural change: Would it be desirable to institute a system of term limits for high federal officials in addition to the two-term limit on the President? Should members of Congress be term limited? How about binding term limits for both parties for years of service as a member or certainly as a chairman of a congressional committee? Alternatively, is the entrenched Congress a desirable balance to direct democracy? Are there times when the government (or at least an elite represented by long-term members of Congress) should overrule the wishes of the people? Or is there a good argument that, without term limits, there is a practical way to limit the power of Congress? Would term limits, even if enacted, have that effect?
Or, should Congress restore the Seventh Amendment right of jury trial by statutorily providing for civil juries in administrative law cases? Couldn’t six person juries of specialists make administrative law less arbitrary? What about moving the more than 1,000 administrative law judges out of the agencies altogether and giving them life tenure while forbidding them from engaging in law execution? Wouldn’t life tenure make administrative law judges more independent? Does the Supreme Court’s decision in June 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board suggest that we need to think harder about the constitutional position of ALJs?
2010 National Lawyers Convention
Topics: | Professional Responsibility & Legal Education |
---|