University Events

In popular and political discourse, the United States Constitution has become a visceral symbolof civic faith, fundamental values and national character – placing it at the center of the 2012 elections in a way it has rarely been before.

Among Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich argues that courts are usurping the Constitution, Rick Perry calls Social Security unconstitutional, Ron Paul calls the EPA unconstitutional, and all assert that the health care reform law is unconstitutional. The Tea Party movement paints President Obama’s policies as not merely wrong, but unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American. Further to the political left, however, many participants in the Occupy/ 99 Percent movements also proclaim a constitutional vision of “We the People.” Lawyers and judges, meanwhile, generally understand the Constitution as a discrete legal document, comprised of technical terms that have been construed over generations to establish a complex set of doctrines.

The resulting dichotomy between “popular” and “legal” readings of the Constitution raises a host of important questions: Should the Constitution’s meaning be determined solely in courts? If not, what should be the role of public opinion? How do the two streams influence one another? Using a broad range of historical, theoretical and philosophic perspectives, top legal experts from both ends of the political spectrum will examine the meaning and implications of the constitutional rhetoric that plays a pivotal and ever-increasing role in contemporary American politics.

Moderator: 
Jared Goldstein, RWU Law

Keynote Speakers: 
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator, Rhode Island; 
Jack Balkin, Yale Law School.

Confirmed speakers include Carl Bogus (RWU Law), Steven Calabresi (Northwestern), Elizabeth Price Foley (Florida International), William Forbath (Texas), Douglas NeJaime (Loyola of L.A.), Reva Siegel (Yale), Lawrence Solum (Georgetown), Ilya Somin (George Mason), and Mark Tushnet (Harvard).