|
The Federalist Society |
|
“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”
Federalist and Fourth President |
Past speakers include Prof. Randy Barnett, Prof. Gerard Bradley, Mr. Ryan Stiles, and Mr. Clark Neily. See below for a description of their speeches.Professor Randy BarnettApril 6, 2006Professor Randy Barnett spoke at the College of Law on Thursday, April 6, 2006. He discussed Gonzales v. Raich and the modern Ninth Amendment. Over one-hundred people attended the event. Randy E. Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor at Boston University School of Law. In 2005, Professor Barnett defended California’s medical marijuana statute in Gonzalez v. Raich. He has also coauthored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, and is one of the conspirators in the Volokh conspiracy, volokh.com. Short biography and publications available at www.randybarnett.com Lexis-Nexis Syllabus from Gonzales v. Raich: Respondents were California residents who suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions and had sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.5 (2005). After an investigation, county officials concluded that one respondent's use of marijuana was entirely lawful under California law; nevertheless, federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants. The Court held that the regulation of marijuana under the CSA was squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of marijuana meant for home consumption had a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market. Given the enforcement difficulties in distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C.S. Sec. 801 (5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Congress was acting well within its authority of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8.
October 27, 2005Professor Gerard V. Bradley argued that the Kentucky Ten Commandments display at issue in McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S. Ct. 2722 (U.S. 2005) should have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Professor Bradley is a professor of law and religion at Notre Dame Law School. He wrote an Amicus Brief for the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family in support of the State of Kentucky in McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S. Ct. 2722 (U.S. 2005). His biography is available at http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facultypages/bradley.html
Lexis-Nexis Syllabus from McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S. Ct. 2722 (U.S. 2005):
After the ACLU sued to enjoin the counties' displays of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, the counties adopted resolutions calling for more extensive exhibits to show that the Ten Commandments were Kentucky's "precedent legal code." Subsequently, the counties revised the exhibits to post new displays entitled the "Foundations of American Law and Government" with the professed intent of educating citizens as to nine documents including the Ten Commandments. The Court affirmed the judgment, agreeing that all of the displays violated the Establishment Clause because they did not have a secular legislative purpose. The Court rejected the counties' request to abandon Lemon's purpose test or to truncate the Court's enquiry into purpose. The Court held that it was necessary to take purpose seriously under the Establishment Clause and to understand purpose in light of context. Therefore, the lower courts properly considered the progression leading up to the counties' third displays in determining that a religious objective permeated the counties' actions. The Court emphasized the importance of neutrality as an interpretive guide to the Establishment Clause.
Lexis-Nexis Syllabus from Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 2854 (U.S. 2005):
The 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol contained 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity. The Court held that the Lemon test was not useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that had been erected on the Capitol grounds. Instead, its analysis was driven both by the nature of the monument and by history. The Court held that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds was a far more passive use of those texts than the mandatory placement of the text in elementary school classrooms. Indeed, the citizen had apparently walked by the monument for a number of years before bringing this lawsuit. The monument was also quite different from the prayers that had been prohibited in public schools. Texas had treated her Capitol grounds monuments as representing the several strands in the State's political and legal history. The inclusion of the Ten Commandments monument in this group had a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government. The Court could not say that Texas' display of the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Mr. Ryan StilesNovember 11, 2005The Federalist Society co-sponsored a speaking event with the National Security and Law Society (NSLS) on Friday, November 11, 2005. Ryan Stiles, an attorney with Figliulo & Silverman in Chicago, presented “Targeting Terrorists: One Lawyer’s Journey from the White House to Baghdad in the Global War on Terror.” Mr. Stiles was previously an attorney with the State Department. During 2004-2005, he served as the Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement for the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. In that position, Mr. Stiles advised the Iraqi Minister of Interior on all issues relating to Iraq's borders and was the senior U.S. Embassy official responsible for coordinating all border security issues with the Iraqi government, the United States Government and Coalition Forces. He developed, trained and mentored a special border force for deployment on the Syrian border to prevent entry into Iraq of terrorists and their weapons and funds, assisted negotiation of border security agreements with Saudi Arabia and Syria, and developed and oversaw implementation of Iraqi visa and passport regulations. Mr. Clark Neily September 16, 2005
On Friday, September 16, 2005, the Society hosted an event at the College of Law at which Clark Neily, a Senior Attornery from the Institute of Justice, discussed Kelo v. City of New London. Students from around the University and faculty attended, as well as debated the consequences of this controversial case on property rights and the Constitution.
Copyright © 2005-2007 The University of Iowa College of Law (The Federalist Society) All rights reserved. |
|
Past Speakers |