Reason.tv - Topics

Randy Barnett: Losing Obamacare While Preserving the Constitution

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:00:00 EDT

“We won in our effort to preserve the Constitution and, in fact, we moved the ball in a more positive direction,” says Georgetown Law's Randy Barnett, one of the legal architects behind the constitutional challenge to Obamacare.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in the 5-to-4 decision upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate as an exercise of Congress’ tax powers, while simultaneously rejecting the Obama administration’s sweeping assertion of federal power under the Commerce Clause. Barnett argues that the chief justice “substituted a less dangerous tax power for a far more dangerous Commerce Clause power." Had the Supreme Court accepted the government’s theory of the Commerce Clause, Barnett explains, Congress would have had the power "to do anything it wants with respect to the economy."

A professor of legal theory at Georgetown University Law Center and the author of nine books, including Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004), Barnett represented the National Federation of Independent Business in its challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Reason Senior Editor Damon Root recently sat down with Barnett to discuss the Obamacare decision, the “echo chamber” of liberal academia, and why the Constitution is fully consistent with libertarian principles.

Approximately 33 minutes.

Shot by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain, and edited by Epstein.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

The Conservative vs. Libertarian Take on the U.S. Constitution

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"We're seeing profound disagreements among conservative legal activists over what the Constitution means," explains Reason Magazine Editor Damon Root. "One of the things we are seeing are conservatives and libertarians disagreeing."

In a new video created by the New York based nonprofit 92nd Street Y, Root argues that where traditional conservatives prefer a powerful state built to preserve settled norms, libertarians are more aggressive in striking down laws that infringe on personal freedom. "There is a small island of government power and it's surrounded by a sea of individual rights. That's the libertarian view and I think that is the correct view."

Approx. 2:40 minutes

For more on this topic, read Conservatives v. Libertarians: The Debate Over Judicial Activism Divides Former Allies (Reason, July 2010)

Subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new stories go live.

Adam Summers Talks Obamacare Ruling on Pajamas Media

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Foundation analyst Adam Summers discusses Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare with PJ Media's Bryan Preston.

Air Date: June 29, 2012.

Approximately 9 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel .

Nick Gillespie Discusses SCOTUS Health Care Ruling with Erin Burnett

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 EDT

Reason.tv editor in chief Nick Gillespie appeared on CNN's OutFront with Erin Burnett to discuss why, in Erin's words, "we are all losers" when it comes to the Supreme Court's health care ruling. Air Date: June 28, 2012.

Approximately 8 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Sex and the Supreme Court: The True Story of Lawrence v Texas

Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"There are some things a state can not do to direct the moral content of your life," explains author and law professor Dale Carpenter, "and controlling your sexuality is one of those things."

In his new book, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas, Carpenter outlines both the backstory and the importance of the 2003 Supreme Court case that invalidated American's sodomy laws. "It revives a constitutional doctrine that protects a right to liberty and privacy and sexual autonomy for adults."

Reason Magazine's Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Carpenter to discuss his book, the story behind the landmark case, and how a baby shower gift became an indicator of changing attitudes inside the Supreme Court.

About 8:45 minutes.

Shot by Meredith Bragg and Anthony Fisher. Edited by Meredith Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Arizona's Immigration Law Heads to the Supreme Court

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"As long as there is not a direct conflict, which the federal government did not do a very good job of pointing to today, the Arizona law gets to stand under the Preemption Doctrine," says Reason's Damon Root, who was at the Supreme Court during Wenesday's oral arguments surrounding Arizona's controversial immigration law. "The federal government is saying that 'we have the power to stomp out all of the state experiments in immigration law enforcement.'"

Much like the Health Care arguments before the Court in March, Root does not see this as a good day for the Obama administration, in part due to their Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's poor performance. "At one point," Root explains "Justice Sotomayor interrupted [Verrilli] and said "look I am terribly confused by what you are saying."

Runs about 3.50 minutes.

Produced by Meredith Bragg.

For more of Reason.tv's coverage of immigration, go here: http://reason.com/topics/immigration

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Matt Welch Discusses 2012 Election, Judicial Activism & "Social Darwinism" on Melissa Harris-Perry

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry Show to discuss today's most heated political battles - Obama vs Romney on the economy, Obama vs SCOTUS on healthcare, & SCOTUS vs the public's privacy on strip searches. Air Date: April 7, 2012.

About 33 minutes.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Obamacare #FAIL: Day 3 at the Supreme Court

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:00:00 EDT

"If I was in the Obama administration, I would not be comfortable with how the last three days went."

Reason's Damon Root was in attendance for the third and final day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which focused primarily on the issue of severability, which brings into question whether the individual mandate be excised from the law, or if the law in its totality must be struck down.

Now that the case is in the hands of the Court and a decision isn't expected until late June, Root thinks the Obama administration has reason to be concerned not only because their Solicitor General's performance rated poorly, but because "their arguments were nowhere near as strong as they thought they were going to be."

Runs about 3 minutes.

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher, shot by Josh Swain and Fisher.

For more of Reason.tv's coverage of the Health Care debate, click here.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

"Constitutional Thunderdome": Day Two of Obamacare Oral Arguments

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:50:00 EDT

Reason's Damon Root attended the pivotal second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which he described as a "Constitutional Thunderdome." The debate over the legality of the mandate to purchase insurance at the heart of ACA was, says Root, a rough-and-tumble colloquy about the "the role of government in our lives" and "what sort of limits the Constitution places on the federal government."

"I'm more confident after today's arguments than I was going in that the individual mandate is in trouble," says Root. Oral arguments end tomorrow and the Supreme Court's decision is expected in early June.

Runs about 3 minutes.

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher, shot by Josh Swain and Fisher.

To read Root's dispatch from Day One of the proceedings, click here.

For more of Reason.tv's coverage of Health Care debate, click here.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Obamacare at the Supreme Court: Day One

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:31:00 EDT

Reason's Damon Root got a coveted seat for the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Day one of this epic judicial showdown focused primarily on whether or not the individual mandate constitutes a tax. If the justices rule that the penalties associated with the mandate should be considered a tax, the challengers to ACA would have to wait until 2015, when the law goes into effect to challenge it.

The main event of these proceedings, the arguments over whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional, will take place tomorrow.

For more of Root's coverage of the Obamacare-SCOTUS hearings, go to Hit & Run.

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher, shot by Josh Swain and Fisher.

About 1.40 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Ilya Somin on Why The Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional and a Threat to Liberty

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EDT

A Supreme Court ruling upholding the individual mandate "will really be, if not a death blow, then certainly a very severe blow to the whole idea that the federal government's powers are limited and that it's not the case that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants," says George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, author of an amicus brief in U.S Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear later this month.

Reason.tv sat down with Somin to discuss why his brief focuses on the individual mandate, what the chances of success are, and whether or not a mandate to buy insurance could empower Congress to pass a mandate that all Americans buy a health food like broccoli.

"There's a lot of industries that have a lot of lobbying power and interest group clout that could promote mandates for themselves," says Somin.

About 9:30 minutes. Interview by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Tracy Oppenheimer, Paul Detrick, and Sharif Matar. Edited by Weissmueller.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Racism, Ron Paul and the Battle over the Right to Bear Arms: An Interview with Adam Winkler

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

“Part of the way African Americans were kept as second class citizens in America was by denying them access to guns,” says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, "I think America is a violent society not because of our guns, but because of our culture."

Winkler sat down with Reason.tv's Tracy Oppenheimer to "tell the amazing story of America's complicated history with guns" and share his revelations about the founding fathers, the NRA and even Ron Paul.

Approximately 5.45 minutes.

Shot by Paul Detrick and Zach Weissmueller; edited by Tracy Oppenheimer

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

3 Supreme Court Decisions to Watch

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:00:00 EST

The Supreme Court is back in session with major decisions coming on the legality of Obamacare, Arizona's anti-immigration law, and the right of property owners to due process.

How's the court expected rule in these cases and what are the likely implications of its decisions?

Reason Senior Editor Damon Root sat down with Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to talk about the 3 decisions to watch in the Supreme Court's current session.

Shot by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg; edited by Jim Epstein.

Approximately 4.30.

Scrolldown for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Will The Supreme Court End New York's Rent Control Laws?

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:00:00 EST

"If you wanted to destroy a city’s housing - short of bombing - the best way to do it is rent control,” says Cato legal associate Trevor Burrus.

While most cities in America long ago got rid of rent control, New York remains a bastion of government-mandated limits on what landlords can charge renters. About 50 percent of New York’s rental market is affected by rent control or rent stabilization, policies that keep rents artificially low and produce housing shortages, higher overall housing costs, and all sorts of corruption.

The court case Harmon v. Kimmel may finally bring an end to rent control laws that have been on the books in one form or another since the 1940s. James D. Harmon owns a building in Manhattan where the tenants are paying rents that are about 60 percent below the going market rate. After losing various legal battles at lower levels, Harmon has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his argument that rent stabilization is a form of takings that should be prohibited under the Constitution. The Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case but has asked the state and city of New York to respond to Harmon's argument.

Cato's Burrus wrote a friend of the court brief on the case and explains why rent control and rent stabilization are bad at promoting affordable housing and abridgments of economic freedom.

About 2.34 minutes. Shot and edited by Joshua Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & It's Dangerous to Be Right When the Gov't Is Wrong

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:00:00 EST

"I'll say this plainly, I've said it before - Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do," says Judge Andrew Napolitano, the host of Fox Business' Freedom Watch and the author of the new book, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with the outspoken libertarian commentator to discuss topics ranging from abortion (the judge is fiercely pro-life) to Occupy Wall Street (he welcomes the protest against corporatism) to Rep. Ron Paul ("the Barry Goldwater" of our moment) to the role of religion in the quest for freedom.

About 25 minutes. Camera by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

For previous Reason interviews with Judge Napolitano and to read his Reason archive, go here.

David Bernstein on Rehabilitating Lochner and the Freedom to Contract

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EDT

“Either the Commerce Clause gives Congress a plenary power to regulate anything it pleases or it doesn’t; and let’s have that argument,” says George Mason University law professor David Bernstein.

Bernstein goes after progressive attempts to limit economic freedom and liberty of contract in his new book Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform, a history of the 1905 case Lochner v. New York. The decision nullified a state law regulating work hours for bakers and became the impetus for a 40-year period where American courts protected economic liberty.

A Lochner rehabilitation has not been easy, Bernstein admits. Many legal experts that see Lochner as on par with the infamous Dred Scott decision. The government's encroaching power under the Commerce Clause has also held the case for economic liberty back. But Bernstein remains hopeful and believes both liberals and conservatives have something to gain in reexamining Lochner's implications, which range from protecting the right to an abortion to striking down the health care act’s individual mandate.

Approximately 6.36 minutes.

Hosted by Nick Gillespie. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.

Timothy Sandefur on The Right to Earn a Living

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:00:00 EDT

"The rational basis test was basically concocted out of thin air by the Progressive movement, gradually, but applied to American law with no constitutional basis. That's why you have cases like [the eminent-domain case] Kelo or these licensing restrictions that prohibit people from earning an honest living."

So says Pacific Legal Foundation attorney and author, Timothy Sandefur, who sat down with Reason.tv to discuss his book The Right to Earn a Living. The "rational basis" review grew out of a 1938 Supreme Court case and essentially argues that as long as a government action can be "rationally tied" to a "legitimate" government interest, anything goes.

Sandefur discusses the "four big Progressive ideas" that came about during the New Deal-era Supreme Court in the 1930's. They include: 1) Rather than being inherent, rights are permissions given to individuals by the state; 2) Government exists to "improve" society, not to protect individual rights; 3) A reading of judicial restraint that means when government violates your rights, the courts should do nothing about it; and 4) Belief in a "living Constitution," that will be radically reinterpreted in various contexts.

Approximately 8.30 minutes.

Shot by Jim Epstein and Dan Hayes. Edited by Dan Hayes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

The Case for Cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:00:00 EDT

Cameras are everywhere today: In convenience stores, at intersections, the workplace, your computer, your cellphone, ATM machines. There's even been a camera in news anchor Katie Couric.

Yet there's one place cameras have never been allowed: The U.S. Supreme Court. Just what are Supreme Court justices hiding beneath their robes that they continue to say no to cameras in their courtroom?

For decades the White House and Congress have opened their public business to television cameras, but the judicial branch has remained staunchly against the practice. As C-SPAN's Brian Lamb tells Reason.tv, he has been rebuffed in every attempt to record and air the oral arguments phase of Supreme Court proceedings. On this, an often-divided court remains unanimous, even if their arguments remain weaker than their majority's logic in their awful Kelo decision, which legitimated eminent domain abuse.

Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan spoke in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court. Can a new batch of justices, more attune to the benefits of transparency, finally change things for the better?

"The Case for Cameras in The Supreme Court" is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.

Approximately 3.40 minutes.

Scroll down for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Damon Root Discusses Libertarians vs. Conservatives on the Supreme Court and More!

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:00:00 EDT

Should the Supreme Court practice judicial restraint?

In his cover story from the July issue of Reason, Associate Editor Damon W. Root discussed how the debate over judicial activism is dividing the conservative legal movement. Root sat down with Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie to discuss libertarian and conservative legal theories, judicial activism, Elena Kagan's nomination, and more.

To see a 50-minute debate between Root, Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Federalist Society President Eugene B. Meyer please go here. The debate took place at Reason headquarters in Washington D.C on June 30th, 2010.

Approximately 10 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg, Josh Swain and Dan Hayes. Edited by Hayes.

Scroll down for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Conservatives v. Libertarians: A Reason Event Featuring Damon Root, Doug Kendall, and Eugene B. Meyer

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EDT

The last few years have been good to the Conservative Judicial Movement, but at what cost? Some conservative judges say these victories have been gained by stomping on precedent.

Should libertarians turn to the courts for political solutions, or do they risk giving ground to liberals pursuing a competing agenda?

On June 30, 2010, Reason sponsored a debate between Reason Associate Editor Damon Root, Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Federalist Society President Eugene B. Meyer. The debate was based on Root's July 2010 cover story.

Approximately 51 minutes. Shot by Dan Hayes and Josh Swain. Edited by Josh Swain.

To view a 10-minute interview with Root on the same topic please see below.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

C-SPAN Founder and CEO Brian Lamb Full Interview

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:00:00 EDT

In 2003 Reason named C-SPAN Founder and CEO Brian Lamb one of our 35 Heroes of Freedom for “turning a surveillance camera on the den of iniquity known as the U.S. House of Representatives.” Lamb sat down with Reason.tv editor Nick Gillespie for a wide-ranging -- and distinctively non-stoned faced -- discussion about the network, his views on politics, and a possible alternate career choice as a drummer for Merle Haggard.

Approximately 40 minutes. Produced, shot and edited by Meredith Bragg, Dan Hayes and Joshua Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Nick Gillespie Talks about the Citizen's United Case on Bill Moyers Journal

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:28:00 EDT

On February 15, 2010, Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie appeared on Bill Moyers Journal to talk about the controversial Supreme Court ruling, Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission.

Approximately 27 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Brian Doherty on the DC Gun Case

dan.hayes@reason.org (Dan Hayes) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:41:00 EDT

On Tuesday, March 18, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first major gun-rights case to be decided by the Court since the 1930s.

Heller deals with Washington, D.C.'s ultra-restrictive gun control laws, which have been in place since 1976. reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty, author of This Is Burning Man: The Rise of a New American Underground and Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement, is writing a book about the case and its ramifications; the volume will be released later this year by Cato Books.

Last week, Doherty gave reason.tv a quick rundown of his project.

Videotaped by Dan Hayes; approximately five minutes.

Discuss this video at reason's staff blog, Hit & Run.