please welcome randy barnett. [applause] >> well it's great to be back at the hayek auditorium and the cato institute with all my friends. i should probably disclose at the outset that i agree with ilya entirely here in this debate, but i don't think that my role today is to pile on and to make this a two-on-one debate. the way, for example, harvard law school did when they invited me to debate both charles freed and larry -- [inaudible] on the constitutionality of the -- that's what harvard thought was a fair fight. maybe they were right about that, i'm not sure. [laughter] >> i think it takes at least six harvard law professors to take you on randy. >> there you go. but i should also disclose that i'm a big fan of david's and what the constitutional accountability center is trying to do, which is offer text and history on behalf of progressive constitutional outcomes. indeed, the cac filed an amicus brief on behalf of me and several other constitutional law scholars in the mcdonald case contending that the indiv

please welcome randy barnett. [applause] >>> i don't think my role today is to pile on and to make this a two-on-one debate. the way for example harvard law school did when they deinvited me to debate on the constitutional mandate. that is what harvard thought was a fair fight. maybe they are right about that. >> i think it takes six harvard law professors. >> i should expose i am a fan of david and a fan of offering text and history on behalf of a progressive constitutional outcomes. a brief was filled on behalf of me and other constitutional law scholars in the mcdonald case contending the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected from state infringement so we have worked together. before i offer observations that i hope clarify the debate. i want to stress i agree with ilya ilya's conclusion and the justification for them. the right to exercise religion is a right of individual and the free exercise involves conduct and not just beliefs. governments are established to secure the rights of individuals.

randy barnett writes about something of this. he talks about the presumption of liberty, that maybe we should start out with that presumption. i liken it to saying maybe we should be presumed innocent until found guilty. maybe we should presume to be free until we are restricted. yes, i've got one convert! yes! my point is really not to try to convert you from judicial restraint to do just that activism but to think about it because i think it is not as simple as we make it sound. we say we do not want judges writing laws. i do not want judges writing laws either, but do i want judges to take an activist role in defense of liberty? do i want them to presume liberty and put the government on the government to prove constitutionality? i think this is important. and it became very important in the case with regard to obamacare. in that basically justice robert says that it is not his role to replace the majority will. some of you might say i'm still for judicial restraint. i do not care about any of those cases. we need a better maj

please republican dibarnett. -- randy barnett. [applause] >> it's great to be back at cato institute with all my friends. i should probably disclose at the outset that i agree with ilya entirely here in this debate, but i don't think my role today is to pile on and to make this a two-on-one debate. the way, for example harvard law school did when they invotedded me to debate two on the constitutionality of the insurance mandate. harvard thought it was fair fight. maybe they were right. >> takes at least six harvard law professors to take you on. >> shy also disclose that i'm a big fan of david's and what the constitutional accountablity center is trying to do which is offer text and history on behalf of a progressive constitutional outcomes. the cac filed an amicus brief on behalf of me and other scholars in the mcdonald case conned tending the right to keep and bear arms was protected with the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. so we work together. however, before i offer some observation is hope will be clari

purposes here today woodcraft the legal challenges before the supreme court in 2012 please welcome randy barnett. [applause] >>. >> is great to be back i share properly disclose at the outset i do not disagree entirely with teeeighteen but my role is not to pile on but the way harvard law school did run ask me to debate both charles and larry on the constitutionality and that was not a fair fight. >> it would take at leas six to take you on. >> and i should disclose imf big fan of david zimmer the accountabilities center is trying to do with behalf of a progressive the outcome. best cac filed the a meet this brief on behalf of me and other scholars to contend the individual rights fr state infringement from the 14th amendment so we work together however before i offer some observations and want to briefly stress that i not only agree with ilya conclusion is that the justification he offers for them there right to freely exercise one's religion is a natural right possessed by inviduals in the free exercise involves contact not just belief and republican governments are established with a pre-exis

randy barnett writes about this, about the presumption of liberty, then maybe we should start out with the presumption of liberty. maybe we should be presumed innocent until found guilty, presumed to be free until we are restricted. [applause] yes, one convert! my point is not to try to convert you from judicial restraint to activism, but think about it. i think it is not as simple as we make it sound. we say we don't want judges writing lots. i don't want the writing was either but i want them to protect my freedom. i want them to take an activist role in defense of liberty to presume liberty and put the burden on the government to prove constitutionality. i think this is important into became very important in the case with regards to obamacare. justice roberts said that it is not his role to replace the majority well. -- majority will. some have said that we just need a better majority. the question has to, if you don't have a better majority. does the court have a role in overturning something in individual rights are at stake? i think they do. ultimately, ideas are important. idea

randy barnett right about something talking about the presumption of liberty. maybe we should start out with the presumption of liberty. i liken it to saying maybe we should be% innocent until found guilty. maybe we should presume to be free until we are restricted. [applause] >> i have got one convert, yes. my point is not to try to convert you from judicial restraint to judicial activism but to think about it. i think it's not as simple as they make it sound. we don't want judges writing. i don't want judges writing was either but do i want judges to protect my freedom? do i want judges to take an activist role in defense of liberty? do you i want them to presume liberty and put the burden on the government to prove constitutionality? i think this is important and important in the case with regard to obamacare. in that basically what justice roberts said and it's not his role to replace the majority will. some of you might say i'm still for judicial restraint. i don't care about those cases. we just need a better majority. that is an argument that the questio

randy barnett writes about something of this.he talks about the presumption of liberty that maybe we should start out with the presumption of liberty. i liken it to sort of saying, maybe we should be presumed innocent until found guilty and maybe we should be presumed to be free until we are restricted. [ applause ] >> yes i've got one convert. yes! my point is not to try to convert you from judicial restraint to judicial activism but to think about it. because it is not as simple as we make it sound. we don't want judges writing laws. i don't want judges writing laws either but do i want judges to protect my freedom but do i want judges to take an activist role in defensive liberty and do i want them to presume liberty and put the burden on the government to prove constitutionality. i think this is important and it became very important in the case with regard to obama care. in that basically justice roberts says that it is not his role to replace the majority will. now some of you might say well i'm still for judicial restraint