Lincoln-Douglas Tavern Debate

**Online registration for this event is now closed.**

If you are still interested in attending, please email [email protected]

If you’re coming to the Federalist Society’s Inaugural Midwestern Regional Conference, then arrive a night early for this fun-filled and stimulating (in more ways than one) night of intellectual debate, witty repartee, and Article III merriment.

In the tradition of the Chicago Lawyers Chapter’s long-beloved Tavern Debates, The Federalist Society and the Institute for Justice’s Center invite you to this edition.

All conference attendees are welcome to join us on Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., just a few blocks down the street from where the conference will take place the next day, for a parliamentary-style extemporaneous debate where everyone can speak their mind on the following:

Resolved: Judges should think for themselves!

The Constitution requires governments at all levels to follow its mandates. For generations many powers-that-be have cautioned that judges should be “restrained” in these determinations and “defer” to the political branches. Yet the Constitution says nothing about whether the judge should “defer” on that question. This is true even in a “close case,” such as when the text is unclear, and is especially true when the text is straightforward (remember Wickard v. Filburn!). Therefore, when a judge assesses the constitutionality of a statute she should do so based on her own independent judgment and not because the government thinks it passes constitutional muster.

“Not so!” say the advocates for judicial restraint. We cannot have unelected judges arbitrarily thwarting the will of the people. The Constitution allows for a wide range of regulation by all levels of government and if judges do not defer to what the people’s representatives want we will have government by judiciary. It is the duty of the political branches to interpret the Constitution just as much as it is of judges. When legislatures and executive officials conclude that they have acted constitutionally, that judgment is entitled to a presumption, at the least.

Which view is right, “pro” or “con”? Come make your voice heard! The evening will begin with opening statements by two esteemed thinkers for and against the Resolution. After that, everyone will have a chance to hold their drink and stand to make their opinion known. At the debate’s conclusion we will take a vote and the question will be settled for all time (for now).

Come meet colleagues from across the region at this Midwestern constitutional kick-off!

Robust appetizers and drinks will be served.

There is no cost to attend this event, but please register in advance!

 

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.