Himalaya-The Podcast Player

4.8K Ratings
Open In App
title

FedSoc Events

The Federalist Society

3
Followers
0
Plays
FedSoc Events

FedSoc Events

The Federalist Society

3
Followers
0
Plays
OVERVIEWEPISODESYOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Details

About Us

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

Latest Episodes

Luncheon and Address by William H. Webster [Archive Collection]

33 MIN1 w ago
Comments
Luncheon and Address by William H. Webster [Archive Collection]

Panel V: The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Affairs [Archive Collection]

On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". This panel was titled "The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Policy".Featuring:Irving Kristol, The Public InterestProf. Gordon Tullock, University of Arizona College of Business and Public AdministrationGodfrey Hodgson, AuthorModerator: Charles Krauthammer, The New Republic*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

80 MIN2 w ago
Comments
Panel V: The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Affairs [Archive Collection]

Luncheon and Address by John Norton Moore [Archive Collection]

35 MIN3 w ago
Comments
Luncheon and Address by John Norton Moore [Archive Collection]

Restoring the Legislative Power to Congress: The Role of the Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The final panel was titled "Restoring the Legislative Power: The Role of Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes"In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison argued that a system of checks and balances between the federal branches of government was vital to the health and safety of our constitutional republic. While discussing how the relationship between these separate branches of government should endure, he specifically highlighted the Legislative branch by saying “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Many in the realm of Constitutional law and governmental policy have argued the balance of power has shifted from the legislature, rendering it less powerful than the founding fathers intended. Some argue this power has been ceded largely to the Executive branch, arguing for more aggressive use of the legislative veto to keep the Executive branch in check. Others argue that the gradual weakening of the non-delegation doctrine has led to the administrative state usurping much of the power once thought solely in the realm of congressional authority. Proponents of the administrative state and of the Executive branch believe these changes are merely a reflection of modern times, and that Congress still has significant and final authority over federal law.This elite panel of experts will explore the issue in depth, touching on various aspects of the debate, and presenting a wide variety of viewpoints. The panel subject matter promises both to be enlightening and educational for lawyers and policy makers alike. Featuring:Prof. Jack Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law SchoolProf. Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of LawProf. David S. Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law; Director, Washington, D.C., Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of LawModerator: Mr. Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPIntroduction: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

61 MINMAY 3
Comments
Restoring the Legislative Power to Congress: The Role of the Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes

Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law. Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

63 MINMAY 3
Comments
Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines

Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The first panel was titled "Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive."In public discourse, the visibility and prominence of the presidency has flourished in recent decades in America. However, while the visibility of the presidency has increased, some worry that the actual power and influence of the presidency gradually has been surrendered to much less visible levers of governmental power. The ever-increasing power of the administrative state and the influence of independent agencies has caused many legal experts and policy makers to question whether the presidency has retained all the powers of the executive branch the founding fathers intended. The President surely exercises some control over significant agency heads, but has Presidential control over the agencies themselves weakened? Is the President’s control over independent agencies too attenuated? Proponents of greater executive power argue that the administrative state has grown so large it can stymie a newly elected president’s agenda, which leads to a less democratic form of government. In light of these concerns, should the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey's Executor, and give the President more control over federal agencies? As a practical matter, if agency power is reduced, what ought to fill the void of policy-making and enforcement?Our distinguished panel of experts will attempt to answer that question, and will delve into multiple sides of this controversial and complex debate.Featuring:Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former White House CounselHon. Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of JusticeMr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and former Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

58 MINMAY 3
Comments
Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive

Panel V: The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process [Archive Collection]

On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law SchoolStephen Markman, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

50 MINAPR 17
Comments
Panel V: The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process [Archive Collection]

Should Big Tech Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?

On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The second panel of the symposium was titled "Should Social Media Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?"Featuring:Adam Candeub, Michigan State University College of LawCarrie Goldberg, C. A. Goldberg PLLCArthur Milikh, Heritage FoundationNadine Strossen, New York Law SchoolModerator: Neil Chilson, Charles Koch Institute*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

79 MINAPR 10
Comments
Should Big Tech Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?

Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?

On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The first panel of the symposium was titled "Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?"Featuring:Roger Alford, Notre Dame UniversityJay Himes, Labaton Sucharow LLPSalil Mehra, Temple University School of LawModerator: Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

81 MINAPR 10
Comments
Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?

Luncheon Address by Edwin Meese [Archive Collection]

On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society held its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. This Luncheon Address was presented by former Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, on the second day of the conference.Featuring:Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United StatesIntroduction: Steven Calabresi, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

36 MINAPR 3
Comments
Luncheon Address by Edwin Meese [Archive Collection]

Latest Episodes

Luncheon and Address by William H. Webster [Archive Collection]

33 MIN1 w ago
Comments
Luncheon and Address by William H. Webster [Archive Collection]

Panel V: The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Affairs [Archive Collection]

On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". This panel was titled "The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Policy".Featuring:Irving Kristol, The Public InterestProf. Gordon Tullock, University of Arizona College of Business and Public AdministrationGodfrey Hodgson, AuthorModerator: Charles Krauthammer, The New Republic*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

80 MIN2 w ago
Comments
Panel V: The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Affairs [Archive Collection]

Luncheon and Address by John Norton Moore [Archive Collection]

35 MIN3 w ago
Comments
Luncheon and Address by John Norton Moore [Archive Collection]

Restoring the Legislative Power to Congress: The Role of the Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The final panel was titled "Restoring the Legislative Power: The Role of Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes"In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison argued that a system of checks and balances between the federal branches of government was vital to the health and safety of our constitutional republic. While discussing how the relationship between these separate branches of government should endure, he specifically highlighted the Legislative branch by saying “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Many in the realm of Constitutional law and governmental policy have argued the balance of power has shifted from the legislature, rendering it less powerful than the founding fathers intended. Some argue this power has been ceded largely to the Executive branch, arguing for more aggressive use of the legislative veto to keep the Executive branch in check. Others argue that the gradual weakening of the non-delegation doctrine has led to the administrative state usurping much of the power once thought solely in the realm of congressional authority. Proponents of the administrative state and of the Executive branch believe these changes are merely a reflection of modern times, and that Congress still has significant and final authority over federal law.This elite panel of experts will explore the issue in depth, touching on various aspects of the debate, and presenting a wide variety of viewpoints. The panel subject matter promises both to be enlightening and educational for lawyers and policy makers alike. Featuring:Prof. Jack Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law SchoolProf. Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of LawProf. David S. Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law; Director, Washington, D.C., Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of LawModerator: Mr. Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPIntroduction: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

61 MINMAY 3
Comments
Restoring the Legislative Power to Congress: The Role of the Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes

Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law. Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

63 MINMAY 3
Comments
Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines

Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The first panel was titled "Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive."In public discourse, the visibility and prominence of the presidency has flourished in recent decades in America. However, while the visibility of the presidency has increased, some worry that the actual power and influence of the presidency gradually has been surrendered to much less visible levers of governmental power. The ever-increasing power of the administrative state and the influence of independent agencies has caused many legal experts and policy makers to question whether the presidency has retained all the powers of the executive branch the founding fathers intended. The President surely exercises some control over significant agency heads, but has Presidential control over the agencies themselves weakened? Is the President’s control over independent agencies too attenuated? Proponents of greater executive power argue that the administrative state has grown so large it can stymie a newly elected president’s agenda, which leads to a less democratic form of government. In light of these concerns, should the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey's Executor, and give the President more control over federal agencies? As a practical matter, if agency power is reduced, what ought to fill the void of policy-making and enforcement?Our distinguished panel of experts will attempt to answer that question, and will delve into multiple sides of this controversial and complex debate.Featuring:Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former White House CounselHon. Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of JusticeMr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and former Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

58 MINMAY 3
Comments
Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive

Panel V: The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process [Archive Collection]

On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law SchoolStephen Markman, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

50 MINAPR 17
Comments
Panel V: The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process [Archive Collection]

Should Big Tech Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?

On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The second panel of the symposium was titled "Should Social Media Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?"Featuring:Adam Candeub, Michigan State University College of LawCarrie Goldberg, C. A. Goldberg PLLCArthur Milikh, Heritage FoundationNadine Strossen, New York Law SchoolModerator: Neil Chilson, Charles Koch Institute*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

79 MINAPR 10
Comments
Should Big Tech Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?

Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?

On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The first panel of the symposium was titled "Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?"Featuring:Roger Alford, Notre Dame UniversityJay Himes, Labaton Sucharow LLPSalil Mehra, Temple University School of LawModerator: Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

81 MINAPR 10
Comments
Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?

Luncheon Address by Edwin Meese [Archive Collection]

On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society held its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. This Luncheon Address was presented by former Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, on the second day of the conference.Featuring:Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United StatesIntroduction: Steven Calabresi, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

36 MINAPR 3
Comments
Luncheon Address by Edwin Meese [Archive Collection]
hmly
Welcome to Himalaya Premium