Search for: "Randy Barnett"
Results 761 - 780
of 1,277
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2007, 7:47 am
Randy E. [read post]
15 Nov 2023, 5:30 am
A few moments later, Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett joined the conversation. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 10:34 am
Also, to the extent that Randy Barnett, someone I like and respect a great deal, adopts a notion that the constitution has a fixed meaning based on original public expectations, I think it, too, is unduly limited; I much prefer Jack's more "dynamic" form of originalism, though I continue to reject the normative importance of originalism. [read post]
2 May 2022, 4:30 am
Similarly, the originalist methodologies favored by Professor Randy Barnett, with a fairly large "construction zone" informed by Barnett's libertarian values, provide judges enormous flexibility to inject their own values into the law. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:03 pm
Randy Barnett believed that the individual mandate could not be justified under current precedent all along, which I think was also true of David Kopel. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 5:51 am
At The Volokh Conspiracy, Georgetown law prof Randy Barnett talks about his proposed constitutional amendment that would allow 2/3rds of the states to band together to repeal any federal law or regulation. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:04 pm
Here’s the set of bloggers and blogging recognized in the first issue of The Post: So Much For the Commerce Clause Challenge to Individual Mandate Being “Frivolous,” The Volokh Conspiracy, July 18, 2010, by Randy Barnett “Let ’em Play,” Volokh Conspiracy, July 18-22, 2011, by Mitch Berman Healthcare and Federalism: Should courts strictly scrutinize federal regulation of medical services? [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 5:00 am
Anatomy of A Murder tribute, via Randy Barnett. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 9:43 am
Touche, Randy.] [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 11:55 am
[01/23/12 04:00 PM (edt)] MEDIA ADVISORY WHAT: The Supreme Court Cases Challenging the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act … [read post]
9 May 2010, 12:31 am
The newly-elected NSSTA Directors are: Joseph Barnett Len Blonder Randy Dyer James Ebel John Machir The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) named Jason Lazarus as its President for 2010-2011 and Charles Schell as Vice President. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 7:45 am
Pride of place goes to Randy Barnett’s coauthorship of the merits brief for the National Federation of Independent Business and other private plaintiffs in the case. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 4:48 am
“Lawyer Defending Congressman’s Wife in Bigamy Case Accuses Client of Having a Second Lawyer” [Slate] “Why tort liability for data breaches won’t improve cybersecurity” [Stewart Baker] Pennsylvania passes a new gun law, and suddenly liberal standing with attorney fee shifting stops being the progressive position [Harrisburg Patriot-News] “Letting a case die like a pet rat forgotten in the garage” [Ken at Popehat on Todd Kincannon challenge to… [read post]
5 May 2010, 8:04 am
Former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Randy E. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 10:43 pm
Perhaps it’s not too late to include a part for co-blogger Randy Barnett, who has previous experience in sci fi/fantasy roles. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 10:15 am
Randy Barnett and I are pleased to announce the launch of our newest project: An Introduction to Constitutional Law—Illustrated Edition. [read post]
11 Mar 2007, 2:14 pm
The article has generated a major blogosphere debate about the dangers of anonymous commentary on the internet (e.g. here, here, and co-conspirator Randy Barnett here). [read post]
30 May 2012, 6:07 am
Barnett (PDF) The Balkinization of Originalism – James E. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 5:15 pm
Among other things, Josh will probably liveblog the panel on federalism at which I will be speaking tommorrow, and a later panel that includes co-conspirator Randy Barnett. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
Many of the legal academics who ridiculed Randy Barnett’s work on the mandate, and who were relied upon by legal journalists and commentators, thought their schools were advancing viable legal claims in Rumsfeld v. [read post]
