. >> book of booktv recently interviewed randy barnett about his book "restoring the lost constitution." in which he argues that for many decades u.s. courts have failed to uphold the parts of the constitution that protect our liberties. >> host: randy barnett is joining us on booktv. tell us about yourself. >> guest: i'm thewaterhouse professor of legal thorry at georgetown college, and i'm a former criminal prosecutor in cook county, illinois in chicago. i argued the medical marijuana case in the supreme court and one of the lawyers for in the national federation of business when they challenged the affordable care act. >> host: given all that experience what do you think of the constitution? >> guest: i like the constitution a lot. a lot more than those who want to change it. but i -- having created judicial interpretations what it's supposed to mean and eliminating large parts of the constitution. >> host: so when we have the argue. decision here's your book, restoring the lost constitution. the presumption of liberty." when we have the argument between it's a living document and a

. >> host: a somebody reads restoring the loss constitution, a randy barnett do they have to be a lost a scholar? >> guest: i hope not. i get a lot of feedback from people who have read it more than once or given as a gift because it opens there allies about what is missing in the constitution and how it came to be. it is a serious book although i try to be lighter in the new material added at the end of the updated edition. there is 60 pages of new material and i hope there is so riddled lighter touch send a beginning but it is to be accessible to the educated audience. >> host: do you think the constitution needs further amending? >> guest: i proposed 10 amendments. the intention to restore the lost constitution. a few places maybe it could be improved but most of it is today gave the lowe's miss reading what the supreme court has done for a long time now those 10 amendments now appears revised the end of the book. >> host: what are some of those? >> guest: introduced to both houses last term would allow a majority of states representing the majority of the of population to repeal an

. >> host: randy barnett is joining us on booktv. tell us about yourself. >> guest: well, under [applause] legal professor at georgetown law school, where i direct the georgetown center for the const to shame. a farmer criminal prosecutor put county illinois chicago and i had the medical marijuana case and i was one of the lawyers for the national federation of independent business when they challenged the affordable care act all the way up to the supreme court. >> host: given all that experience, professor barnett, what do you think of the constitution? >> guest: like the constitutional law. i like it more than those who want to change it by creating interpretations of what is supposed to mean by eliminating large parts of the constitution. >> host: here's your book, by the way, "restoring the lost consultation" the presumption of liberty. when we had that argument between a living document in a strict constructionist argument, looking at the constitution, is that a fair argument? >> guest: i wouldn't put it quite that way. i want t

. >> host: randy barnett is joining us on >> host: randy barnett joining us on booktv. >> guest: i am the up professor of legal theory at georgetown tried direct the georgetown center for the constitution in the formal prosecute be -- prosecutor in chicago in those one of the lawyers for the national federation of business and the challenge the affordable care at all the way of to the supreme court. >> guest: given all that experience what do you think of the constitution? >> guest: i like it more than those who want to change its by having creative judicial interpretations of what it is supposed to mean in eliminating a large parts of the constitution in. >> host: when we have that argument, here is your book "restoring the lost constitution: the presumption of liberty." between a living document and a strict constructionist argument looking up a constitution is that a fair argument? eighty-one actual date if it does not be followed is a dead constitution that is what i want to follow to keep alive. with strict constructionist to agree with justice scalia you want to correct lee inte

last but certainly not least we'll hear from randy barnett. randy is a professor legal theory at georgetown law center where he teaches on a whole variety of subjects. is a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school. he began his career as a prosecutor in the cook county state attorney's office in chicago. in 2004, he argued that medical marijuana case before the supreme court and that featured a prominent terms of the analysis for the obamacare case. is the author of over 100 articles and blog reviews as well as nine books, in randy barnett goes the role that politics played in litigation. with that please join me in welcoming our panel and then we will turn it over. [applause] >> thank you very much, john. and thank you to the heritage foundation both for putting this on and for helping out the litigation of this crazy case. i want to thank the volokh conspiracy -- my professor in law school for giving me the opportunity work on this book which was incredibly fun. got to relive some of my own past because i had the interestin

orin who randy barnett describe as a one man would court with respect to this debate will discuss what role academics and commentators played in the run up to this case, and he will compare that with the role that academics and commentators have played in other supreme court cases. last bus or in at least we were there from randy barnett, randy is a professor of legal theory at george -- georgetown university law center where he teaches on a whole variety of subjects. is a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school. he began his crew as a prosecutor in the cook county state attorney's office in chicago. in 2004, he argued the medical marijuana case before the supreme court in that case featured rather prominently in terms of the analysis for the obamacare case. he is the author of over 100 articles and law reviews as well as nine books, and randy will discuss the role that politics played in the litigation. with that please join in welcoming our panel and then we will turn it over. [applause] >> thank you very much, john, and thank you to the heritage foundation for put

>> host: randy barnett, as a former prosecutor, when she taking people's liberties away from them? >> guest: course good advice, government takes people's liberties away when they violate the rights of others and also can properly regulate is on its regulations are reasonable and can be shown to be reasonable in the pursuit of an appropriate government purpose. i don't know if its nose, but a great many regulations are in pursuit of helping some special interest groups at the expense of the general public were some other competitor. those would not be general-interest types of regulation. reasonable regulations are constitutional prohibitions are also constitutional. i became a state prosecutor because state prosecutors prosecute crimes of murder, armed robbery, theft and those violate the rights of others. >> host: why is the individual mandate in your view in the health care law unconstitutional? >> guest: is actually not only my view. i justices on the supreme court including chief justice robert thought requiring people to engage in economic activity or commerce in order that i

this down because early on, we put out a lot of arguments against the constitution mandate like randy barnett were and others being a prominent in the constitutional scholars to could not therefore we over time many people didn't agree and have to recognize there was a debate as opposed to a slam-dunk for the federal government. moreover, the format enabled us to influence this debate in a way that we might not have been able through the traditional means for a couple of reasons. one is the conspiracy thanks in large part to the work not much involved in this case but that they found upon and had a large preexisting audience on legal scholars, journalists and others who were influential in the the date when. because when we get post almost instantly any time we wanted, we could expose and real-time the claims made by either side in the debate. and that gave a tremendous advantage over doing things in the conventional media or through writing fell law review articles which were great. i write them myself but they take many months to come out and many journalists who are not experts were not ab

last but not least you hear from randy barnett who is the waterhouse professor at georgetown university of law center where he teaches on a variety of subjects. he's a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school. he began his career as a prosecutor and the state attorney's office. in 2004 he argued that medical marijuana case in that case actually feature prominently in terms of the analysis for the obamacare case. he's he is the author of over 100 articles as well as mine books. and he will discuss the role that policy played in litigation. please join me in welcoming our panel. [applause] >> okay, up to you, whatever you would like. >> okay. thank you very much, john. thank you to the heritage foundation for putting on and also for helping out and doing an incredible job of litigation. i also want to thank the conspirators come through to my left and uncle we are representing. david bernstein was my boss will proceso and he gave me opportunities work on this book. and i had some interesting experiences coming out of law school. so that was somewhat surreal things workin

and last but certainly not least we will hear from randy barnett, a professor of legal theory at georgetown university theater. a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school and began his career as a prosecutor in the cook county state's attorney's office in chicago in 2004, the medical marijuana case which featured rather prominently in terms of the analysis for the obamacare case, author of over 100 articles is as well as nine bucks and will discuss the role of politics played in the litigation join me and will turn over. [applause] >> thank you for putting this on and helping out. i also want to think they can spur tors. david bernstein, my professor in law school for giving me an opportunity to work on this book which was incredibly fun. i have the interesting experience of coming out of law school and working on the base supreme court case in 50 years which was somewhat surreal. i am going to give a few brief comments. and lecture about this throughout the country. sometimes i feel like after return people to civics class. kneele of the problems we have that the constitu