Source: http://ww.fed-soc.org/conferences/2019-national-student-symposium
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:02:27+00:00

Document:
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The symposium opened with a keynote lecture by Prof. Richard Epstein on "Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?"
KEYNOTE TOPIC: Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?
Is Lochner v New York constitutionally indefensible? It is commonly asserted that there are only four cases in American constitutional history that are beyond the pale: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, and Lochner v. New York. The stark contrast between decisions that have thwarted economic and social liberties and the one case that defends it, should itself be sufficient to explain why economic liberties today deserve increased constitutional protection. In this lecture, Professor Epstein will examine the yawning gulf between Lochner and these three other decisions.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".
Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.
This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.
7:30 p.m. - 7:40 p.m.
Nate Kaczmarek, Director of the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative, will recap the 2018 Article I Writing Contest and announce this year's winners.
7:40 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Nate Kaczmarek, Director of the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, will introduce filmmakers Patrick Reasonover and Jo Jenson from Just Add Firewater to talk about RTP's forthcoming full length, documentary film "They Say It Can't Be Done" and provide a preview screening for the conference. Afterward the filmmakers will be available to speak with students about the film at the reception.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The second panel asked "Is Economic Protectionism a Legitimate State Interest?".
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The third panel explored "Economic Liberty in Criminal Justice: Business Crimes and Economic Sanctions".
Although criminal justice is often associated with non-economic issues—such as those raised by violent crimes and long prison sentences—the system regularly implicates individual economic liberty, as can be seen in the prohibition and prosecution of certain commercial and financial interactions. Sometimes individuals are held strictly liable for their actions even in the absence of force, fraud, or direct harm. In turn, the government may impose a variety of economic sanctions for purported wrongdoing, with fines, fees, and forfeitures levied in legal processes which often seem bereft of basic procedural protections. This panel will explore these and other criminal justice issues and the implications for individual economic liberty.
Box lunches will be available for pick up in the Snell & Wilmer Plaza.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The fourth panel discussed "Blockchain-Backed Cryptocurrencies: Order Without Law in the Digital Age".
In the wake of skyrocketing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices, the SEC has argued that cryptocurrencies should be regulated as securities. Yet, many of those responsible for developing cryptocurrencies view them as an efficient, reliable way of storing and exchanging value without government interference or regulation. This panel will discuss the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will play a meaningful role in the global economy, and if and how they should be regulated.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The roundtable discussion covered "Federalism's Contribution to Economic Liberty: Catalyzing Technological Advancement and Economic Growth".
Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee economic liberty? If not, what role might states play in advancing economic liberty? Frustrated with the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to solve regulatory or competition-based problems, some states have taken matters into their own hands. This panel will address how states have been, and still can be, laboratories of democracy when it comes to regulation and catalyzing economic growth. It will also address how federal regulators can work with, not against, states to accomplish these goals.
Using case studies ranging from emerging technologies to marijuana deregulation, the panel will explore the state’s role in our modern federal system, with special attention paid to modern interpretations of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
Discussion will focus on demonstrating the ways in which states can remain flexible in fostering innovation—both technological and regarding social policy—while ensuring that consumers are adequately protected from dangerous product or service testing or other offerings. This flexibility enables states to attract, test, and encourage competition in emerging and innovative technologies, as well as long-existing technologies with lowered barriers to entry.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.