As Professor Sachs said in the September 4 panel on the ACA, "It's Constitutional, Now what?," "Just because the Supreme Court held that the ACA was constitutional doesn't mean it is constitutional." Join the Federalist Society as Professor Neil Siegel and Mr. Ilya Shapiro square off in a head to head debate on the Supreme Court's ACA Decision. Is it Constitutional? Was it great? Terrible? So-so?

Fresh from oral argument (http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/03/27/transcript-scotus-affordable-car…) in front of the Supreme Court, Hon. Gregory Katsas comes to Duke Law to continue the healthcare debate with Professor Barak Richman. Join us as these two square off and debate not only the law, but also the policy implications of the Supreme Court's historic hearing on the Affordable Care Act. Between 2001 and 2009, Mr. Katsas served in many senior positions in the U.S.

The Federalist Society welcomes you to join us for a debate between Mr. J. Christian Adams from the Election Law Center and Professor Atiba Ellis, L '00 from the West Virginia University College of Law for a debate on Voter Identification Laws. As more states pass such laws understanding this topic is becoming increasingly important. Mr. Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice and a columnist for PJmedia.com.

October 4, 2011 - Dr. Michael Greve, the John G. Searle Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and one of America's leading experts on Federalism will be debating Duke Law's own Professor Neil Siegel on the topic of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Federalism. The Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy is excited to join us in cosponsoring the debate. Join us for this intellectual duel between two incredibly smart men.

Professors Josh Chafetz (Cornell) and Michael Gerhardt (UNC-CH) discuss whether the Constitution permits supermajority rule in a house of Congress, what effect the filibuster has on the constitutional separation of powers, and what (if anything) can or should be done to alter or abolish the filibuster.
Brought to you by the Program in Public Law

Judicial Engagement or Judicial Abdication? That is the question Clark Neily from the Institute for Justice and our own Professor Neil Siegel will attempt to answer. Judicial Engagement is the concept that federal judges should be enforcing constitutional limits on the other branches of government.