please welcome professor randy barnett. [applause] >> thank you, roger, for that introduction. it's a great pleasure, as always to be back at cato. and it is truly a pleasure to be here to celebrate the publication of helen knowles' new book "the tie goes to freedom." let me begin by saying to helen, helen, this is a marvelous book. you should be very proud of your accomplishment here. i can sum up its virtues as follows. it is exceedingly well researched. it is impressive accurate about the intricate body of constitutional cases and doctrines that it discusses. it is theoretically sensitive and insightful and it is beautifully and above all, clearly written. notice i put the emphasis on clearly, even above the beauty of the prose, and i think you will agree or at least i would like you to know that the clarity of the book is manifested here in the clarity of professor knowles' presentation to you. she writes as clearly as she speaks. now, while the subject of this book is justice kennedy's jurisprudence, to examine this, helen was forced to explain to readers the complexity of

or so after which we will have comments from one of her mentors at boston university, professor randy barnett, know what the georgetown law center. professor knowles will then respond briefly after which questions and answers, and then we will retire for lunch upstairs in the winter garden. let me then briefly give you a bioon professor helen knowles. it is a very, very impressive curriculum that she has corso byung a scholar. she graduated only in 2000 from liverpool university college in liverpool, and she graduated first in her class, the prize for the highest finally year grades achieved by a student in the single honors program in the department of american studies. she then enrolled in boston university to pursue her doctorate, which she did in completed in 2007 with a dissertation called, a dialogue of liberty, the constitution, the classical liberal and civic education principles of justice kennedy's vision of judicial power. i asked her just before she went on whether it was libertarianism that occurred to justice kennedy or the other way around. surprisingly it was the other way rou

randy barnett at georgetown university has described the constitution it is animated by a resumption of liberty. and that to be the starting point for any judicial inquiry. it is no the bunning fathers recognized in the constitution may need to be changed from time to time as public circumstances dictate. and they put in the constitution in process by which that would occur involving the congress and the state's but it is an arduous process of deliberately arduous. in fact, since the bill of rights was added to the constitution in 1791 we had 17 amendments, but profound changes have occurred in other ways. this supreme court has accomplished through the back door what congress and the states did not accomplish or could not accomplished through the amendment process and in doing so it has effectively amended the constitution. the words remain the same if you look in the constitution today to see them just as the founders wrote them, but their meaning has been profoundly and radically changed. this results in a ratchet effect that over time means there is increasing government authorit

joining me is the professor of legal theory at georgetown university randy barnett. thank you for being with us on america's news headquarters. what is the issue at hand here, if there's a case pending that people have watched, looked at carefully? >> right, the issue was whether to right the bear arms as an individual rights is now also applicable to the states. be the 14th amendment. and applicable to the the federal government, including the district of columbia and how is it applicable to the states like illinois and cities and municipalities like chicago. >> brian: how is she somehow involved? >> well, she decided a case which is going to be famous as the none chuck case, the malo maloney versus cuomo case, and prohibits the possession of nonchucks. and it was a three-judge panel so we don't know exactly who authored the opinion, but she first held based on precedent, the second amendment, and then she considered the 14th amendment argument made elsewhere around the country and dismissed this argument in an extremely cursory fashion and didn't really state the a