Featuring Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute; Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; and Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; moderated by Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
Of all the rights the U.S. Constitution protects, courts are probably most vigilant about protecting free speech. Freedom of expression is not only a cornerstone of democratic government, but also central to the more ordinary choices citizens make in their daily lives. Yet one class of speech has been almost entirely ignored by the courts: speech by professionals engaged in their business. In the new issue of Regulation, Cato scholar Timothy Sandefur argues that the Supreme Court should make it clear that censoring professionals is intolerable.
The precautionary principle always rigs the outcome in favor of immigration restriction because it’s impossible to prove that all refugees will be harmless just like it is impossible to prove than any of us will be harmless. If the precautionary principle is a starting point for debate then those favoring refugees will always fail. No debate should be stacked this way.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The Future of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group
Featuring Alan Gura, Partner, Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C.; Dennis Henigan, Vice President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Nelson Lund, Professor, George Mason University Law School; and Alan B. Morrison, Professor, The George Washington University Law School; moderated by Roger Pilon, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
In 2008, for the first time in our history, the Supreme Court invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a gun-control law, holding that the federal government may not prohibit law-abiding citizens from keeping a handgun in the home for self defense. In 2010, the Court held that state and local governments are also prohibited from banning handguns in the home. Major victories for individual liberty, those decisions were also very narrow. Can we expect future decisions to recognize a wide range of rights to keep and bear arms? Or will the Court’s recent decisions turn out to be mostly symbolic, with little effect on legislative discretion to regulate access to firearms? Please join us for a discussion of opposing views about what the courts are likely to do and what they should do.