A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.
Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.
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.