Reason.tv - Topics

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.

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.

Are Drone Strikes and Kill Lists The New Normal?

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 EDT

Disturbed by extra-constitutional U.S. drone strikes in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan? Presidential "kill lists" of suspected terrorists and security threats raise endless ethical and constitutional concerns?

A decade-plus after the 9/11 attacks and the launching of a vaguely defined and expansive global "war on terror", Americans are grappling with appalling revelations that the president claims the right, without any sort of judicial or legislative review or approval, to assassinate individuals (even American citizens) and groups he believes are national security threats.

Reason's Nick Gillespie talks with Eli Lake, the senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast/Newsweek (and an occasional Reason contributor) and discusses the effects of technological developments and power grabs by both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama on military action.

Lake believes that a tentative consensus has formed around the use of drone strikes and targeted killings. "I think there's a much better chance, if libertarians are worried about it," he says, "of introducing some sort of oversight...and some degree of transparency in that process than it is to say we can't do it."

About 6 minutes. Produced by Joshua Swain, with camera by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, and Swain.

Follow Reason on Twitter.

Follow Gillespie on Twitter and buy the new, expanded paperback edition of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America.

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.

Charles Nichols Challenges California's Open Carry Ban

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"It's unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons, one that the public find most useful for self-defense," says Charles Nichols, president of California Right To Carry and the man behind the first lawsuit to challenge California's open carry gun ban.

Nichols sat down with Reason.tv's Tim Cavanaugh to discuss his lawsuit, which is actually targeting the original ban from the 1970s that prohibited the carrying of loaded weapons. They discussed his prospects for success, as well as California's extremely strict gun control laws and how they might hold up in a post-DC v. Heller world.

For more details on this case, go here.

Reason.tv covered the open carry ban back in 2011.

About 6:14 minutes. Interview by Tim Cavanaugh. Edited by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Paul Detrick, Anthony Fisher, and Weissmueller.

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.

How Sex Offender Registries Fail Us

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EDT

You can be put on the sex offender registry for urinating in public, having consensual sex as a teenager or even for “sexting.” And in California, once you are on the list, you are on it for life.

The registry has become the medieval stocks of the 21^st century and, as attorney Janice Bellucci says, once someone is on the registry, "he is treated like a leper".

There are violent sexual predators who should be on the registry for life, but 95% of those on the registry never commit another sex offense, according to the California Department of Corrections.

Reason.tv spoke to a registrant ruined by the registry. His crime: having sex with his teenage girlfriend.

“It was actually illegal for me to be anywhere near her for three years,” he says, “but she waited for me. And I waited, too.”

They are still married today, 10 years after he was convicted.

Harsher laws for registrants continue to be passed while proposed reforms to the registry have struggled to gain ground.

California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano introduced a bill for a tiered registry in January, but it was defeated thanks to opponent's scare tactics.

"There have always been stories, especially this summer, about child predators in the area," says Mission Viejo Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht, who introduced a bill banning sex offenders from public parks and beaches.

Bellucci is going to keep fighting for reform. “We’re not thinking from a logical and rational place,” she says, “instead we are acting from fear."

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Shot by Paul Detrick, Zach Weissmueller and Sharif Matar.

Approximately 7.30 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel for 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.

Damon Root Talks EPA's Restriction of Couple Building on Own Land on Freedom Watch

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:00:00 EST

Reason's Damon W. Root appeared on Fox News’ Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the EPA’s use of administrative compliance orders, which are government commands that allow the agency to control the use of private property. Root discusses a specific situation in Idaho where a couple was barred from building a house on their own land.

Original airdate: 01-05-2012

Approximately 2:46

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

Ken Burns on PBS Funding, Being a "Yellow-Dog Democrat," and Missing Walter Cronkite

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EDT

"In a perfect world," says legendary filmmaker Ken Burns, "we'd want government support [for the arts] and a lot more of it."

Burns' new PBS documentary, Prohibition, was made with his longtime collaborator Lynn Novick and explores the causes, failures, and legacy of the nation's "Noble Experiment" in banning alcohol in the early 20th century. His previous works on topics such as the Civil War, baseball, and jazz were critical and commercial successes, helping to revitalize the documentary form and start rich conversations about race, history, and politics.

The Prohibition documentary will likely do the same. "There were all these factions, left and right, black and white, that were for [banning alcohol].... It [is] too easy to dismiss it as purely a retrograde, conservative attempt back to some good old days that never existed. It was a much more complicated dynamic." Indeed, the documentary stresses the role of Progressive legislators in pushing the 18th Amendment.

"The telling of history need not be Castor Oil, the dry recitation of dates, facts, and events" says Burns, who rejects doctrinaire activism in his art despite calling himself a "Democrat for life."

Burns says the proliferation of cheap production and distribution technologies for creative expression is a cause for optimisim but worries about audience fragmentation. "When I grew up, there were four or five channels and people basically shared a common canon of knowledge....Now people can seek their own self-satisfying sources of knowledge [which] is hugely dangerous."

Despite the immense popular appeal of his work, Burns is no fan of "the market" when it comes to making films. While Bank of America is one of the major funders of his current documentary, he says that in a non-public-television setting the company would have likely exerted editorial pressure on his product. Corporate money and commerical outlets even on niche cable channels come with too many strings and compromises attached, says Burns. He notes that highly praised documentarians such as Errol Morris "work a great deal of time doing commerical work on the side, which I don't have the time or the luxury or the talent to do."

This wide-ranging and sometimes-heated conversation is about 22 minutes long and was filmed by Jim Epstein, Anthony Fisher, and Meredith Bragg, who also edited the piece. Watch a discussion with Gillespie and Burns specifically about Prohibition here

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

Guns, Laws, and Panics: How Fear, Not Fact, Informs the Gun Rights Debate

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EDT

California has among the strictest gun laws in the country, and couple of local politicians are seizing the opportunity created by the Arizona shooting to make them even stricter.

While most states operate under a "shall-issue" concealed carry weapons (CCW) permitting regime, meaning that anyone who passes a basic background check can get a CCW, California uses the "may-issue" rule, which means the decision is left to the sole discretion of the county sheriff. The result? Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs, which is almost 20 times lower than in the average shall-issue state.

This restrictive climate has led to the emergence of a burgeoning "Open Carry" movement, wherein citizens carry holstered, unloaded weapons in plain sight. California Assemblyman Anthony Portantino calls the open carry exemption in the law a "loophole," which he intends to close with Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144).

Portantino's fellow Assembly member Lori Saldana tried to ban open carry in 2010, but the bill failed in the assembly. But this time, AB 144 has gained helpful momentum from an unexpected source: Jared Loughner.

"Since the events in Arizona, gun issues have taken on a greater national debate and a greater significance," says Portantino. Earlier this year, AB 144 passed the Assembly and now will head to the state Senate in late August 2011 and then on to Governor Jerry Brown's desk.

Open Carry advocate Sam Wolanyk, who once successfully sued San Diego county when police arrested him for open carrying, says that the focus on lawful gun owners is misguided.

"It doesn't matter if you stacked up 50,000 felonies," says Wolanyk of the Loughner situation. "You can't stop a crazy person from doing crazy things."

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, creator of the popular law blog the Volokh Conspiracy, also says that crafting legislation in the face of rare tragedies is misguided.

"It doesn't make much sense to come up with comprehensive law focusing on those very rare incidents," says Volokh.

Despite the fact that crime rates are down nation wide and that there has never been a reported incident of an Open Carrier hurting someone, Portantino stands firm that the practice is a public danger and a drain on police resources. He also says he has no plans on introducing legislation to loosen up concealed carry laws.

"Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

Approximately 8:30.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Hawk Jensen.

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

Fighting the War on Cameras: Jerome Vorus and the ACLU take D.C. to Court

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Can the police detain you for taking pictures of a routine traffic stop? Police in Washington D.C. say they can.

In 2010, photographer and student Jerome Vorus was detained and questioned by police after he photographed a traffic stop in Georgetown. The ACLU says he was illegally detained and has filed a lawsuit on his behalf. Vorus recently sat down with Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie to discuss what happened that day and where his case currently stands.

With cameras and other recording devices becoming more affordable, cases like Vorus’ have become all too common. For more information on this disturbing trend, read Reason magazine's January 2011 cover story "The War on Cameras" with the companion piece "How to Record the Cops” and watch Reason.tv’s documentary “The Government’s War on Cameras!”

Shot by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain. About 4.18 minutes.

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 notifications when new material goes live.

All The President's Wars: How Foreign Policy Became One Man's Prerogative

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EDT

As Barack Obama announces the beginning of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, a far bigger issue - one that goes to the heart of American history and government - remains unaddressed.

"That the President has the right to start a war at his pleasure is just completely divorced from the original meaning of the Constitution," says constitutional scholar Gene Healy.

President Bush declared a war on terror that could theoretically extend into any country accused of harboring terrorists, including the United States itself. President Obama not only expanded the war in Afghanistan soon after taking office, he decided to bomb Libya without consulting Congress.

Healy, author of The Cult of the Presidency and an analyst at the Cato Institute, offers a forceful critique of the increasingly expansive role of the president in not only conducting wars but in declaring them. While the Constitution delegates the declaration of war to Congress, Healy stresses that its members are usually more interested in "handing out the bacon and getting re-elected" than in being held accountable for the success and failure of military interventions.

Michael Ramsey, a constitutional scholar and law professor at the University of San Diego, believes that the Constitution grants the president fairly broad war powers, especially in response to attacks, but even he argues that President Obama's recent Libya intervention has no Constitutional justification.

Is this any way to run a country's foreign policy and military might?

Ramsey and Healy sat down with Reason.tv to discuss how presidential war powers have expanded over time - and whether that's a good thing for the United States and the rest of the world.

Produced and Edited by Zach Weissmueller; shot by Paul Feine, Josh Swain, and Jim Epstein.

About 9 minutes.

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

The High Value of Low Speech: First Amendment Attorney Robert Corn-Revere Defends The Right to Offend

Mon, 23 May 2011 11:00:00 EDT

"All First Amendment cases are about the power," says First Amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere. "Who should have the power to tell individuals what to read, think, believe or feel?"

At Reason Foundation's annual Reason Weekend, Corn-Revere made the case that speech should be free even when that speech is widely reviled. He discussed the range of historical judicial opinions on the First Amendment, his involvement in defending pornographer John Stagliano against obscenity charges, his defense of the Westboro Baptist Church, and how he managed to get a posthumous pardon for comedian Lenny Bruce.

About 34 minutes. Shot by Alex Manning and Paul Detrick; edited by Zach Weissmueller.

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

Nick Gillespie on War-Mongering Presidents & "Lily-Livered Sapsucker" Congress on Glenn Beck

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:00:00 EDT

Reason's Nick Gillespie appeared on The Glenn Beck Show featuring guest host Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss Barack Obama's and George Bush's unconstitutional war-mongering - and Congress' absolute fecklessness.

This may be the first and only time that Fox News viewers heard Congress described as a bunch of "lily-livered sapsuckers" and worse for not standing up to bomb-happy presidents.

Air date: April 12, 2011.

How to Deal with Cops: Q&A with Steve Silverman of Flex Your Rights

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:00:00 EST

"Asserting your Constitutional rights is not a trick in any way," says Steve Silverman of Flex Your Rights. "What the police officers do is a trick."

Silverman started Flex Your Rights in 2002 after spending years working with college students who lost scholarships because of minor drug busts. Since then the organization has produced two popular videos, Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters and 10 Rules For Dealing with the Police, both of which have millions of views on YouTube and have been screened in classrooms and communities around the country.

Silverman sat down with Reason.tv's Tim Cavanaugh to discuss the best tactics to employ during a police encounter and to explain why it is in your best interest to refuse to consent to a search, even if you have nothing to hide.

Approximately 9 minutes.

Interview by Tim Cavanaugh. Shot by Hawk Jensen, Paul Detrick, and Austin Bragg. Edited by Zach Weissmueller.

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

Nick Gillespie Discusses Obamacare and Corporate Welfare with Judge Napolitano

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason.tv editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie appeared on Jude Napolitano's Freedom Watch to discuss the continual corporate exemptions to the health care reform's mandates and whether Obama's relationship with Wall Street means he's pro-market or pro-big business. Air Date: January 7, 2010.

Approximately 9 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.

Radley Balko Discusses the Death Penalty in Texas on Russia Today

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko appeared on Russia Today's The Alyona Show to explain the Texas court hearing on the state constitutionality of the death penalty. Air date: December 7, 2010.

Approximately 6.26 minutes.

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

Richard Epstein on Barack Obama, his former Chicago Law Colleague

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST

Few legal scholars have blown as many minds and had the tangible impact that Richard Epstein has managed. His 1985 volume, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain is a case in point. Epstein made the hugely controversial argument that regulations and other government actions such as environmental regulations that substantially limit the use of or decrease the value of property should be thought of as a form of eminent domain and thus strictly limited by the Constitution. The immediate result was a firestorm of outrage followed by an acknowledgment that the guy was onto something.

As Epstein told Reason in a 1995 interview, "I took some pride in the fact that [Sen.] Joe Biden (D-Del.) held a copy of Takings up to a hapless Clarence Thomas back in 1991 and said that anyone who believes what's in this book is certifiably unqualified to sit in on the Supreme Court. That's a compliment of sorts.... But I took even more pride in the fact that, during the Breyer hearings [in 199X], there were no such theatrics, even as the nominee was constantly questioned on whether he agreed with the Epstein position on deregulation as if that position could not be held by responsible people."

Born in New York in 1943, Epstein splits faculty appointments at the University of Chicago and New York University; he's also a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a contributor to Reason. In books such as Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (1992) to Simple Rules for a Complex World (1995), and Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism (2003), Epstein pushes his ideas and preconceptions to their limits and takes his readers along for the ride. A die-hard libertarian who believes the state should be limited and individual freedom expanded, he is nonetheless the consummate intellectual who first and foremost demands he offer up ironclad proofs for his characteristically counterintuitive insights into law and social theory.

Indeed, Epstein's enduring value may not be any particular legal or policy prescription he's offered over the years but rather his methodology. He believes in robust and unfettered argument and debate as a way of gaining knowledge. If you don't put your ideas out in the arena, you can't be doing your best work, he argues. "The problem when you keep to yourself is you don't get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you," he says.

Reason's Nick Gillespie interviewed Epstein at NYU's law building in October. The conversation was wide-ranging and high-energy--another Epsteinian virtue. They talked about legal challenges to ObamaCare, the effects of stimulus spending and TARP bailouts, and a former University of Chicago adjunct faculty member by the name of Barack Obama, with whom Epstein regularly interacted in the 1990s and early 2000s.

"He passed through Chicago without absorbing much of the internal culture," says Epstein of the president. "He's amazingly good at playing intellectual poker. But that's a disadvantage, because if you don't put your ideas out there to be shot down, you're never gonna figure out what kind of revision you want."

Filmed and edited by Jim Epstein with help from Michael C. Moynihan and Josh Swain.

Approximately 12.30 minutes.

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.

Jacob Sullum Appears on MSNBC to Discuss NYC's Anti-Smoking Ads

Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:00:00 EDT

Senior editor at Reason magazine and Reason.com, Jacob Sullum appears on MSNBC to debate the constitutionality of New York City's mandate forcing store owners to place anti-smoking ads in their windows. Air date: October 14, 2010.

Approximately 5.23 minutes.

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

Anyone Care About Economic Liberty Anymore? George Thomas on the 14th Amendment

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:00:00 EDT

"To take the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment seriously is to take economic liberties seriously," says George Thomas, an associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

Thomas notes that, for most of our nation's history, there wasn't a rigid distinction between civil and economic liberties. The Bill of Rights treated them all as fundamental rights, and, as can be seen in the famous passage, the Fourteenth Amendment continued this tradition: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thomas explains that the separation between civil and economic liberties began during the Franklin Roosevelt era, when various economic liberties seemed to be written out of the Constitution. He shows how recent Supreme Court decisions, such as in Kelo v. City of New London, which granted governments wider economic domain powers, and McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" to states and localities, figure in to how America defines and protects fundamental rights and economic liberties.

Approximately 10 minutes.

Interview by Sam Corcos. Shot and edited by Hawk Jensen.

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 material goes live.

Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional, Cites Reason.tv

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:00:00 EDT

*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law "must be declared void." Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.

More from Peter Suderman here: http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/31/judge-individual-mandate-uncon

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several States," and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it's justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.

How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.

Produced by Austin Bragg. Approximately 10 minutes.

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

Eugene Volokh on Gun Rights, Free Expression, and the Nanny State

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:00:00 EST

Reason.tv's Ted Balaker sat down with Eugene Volokh, professor of law at the UCLA School of Law and founder of The Volokh Conspiracy, to discuss gun rights, free expression, and the Nanny State.

Find out what Volokh thinks the biggest threats to free expression are, and whether today's muzzlers come mostly from the left or right. Volokh also explains what the landmark Supreme Court case, DC vs. Heller, has done to gun control and whether he agrees with the "more guns, less crime" thesis.

Other topics include: media bias and gun rights, Alabama's prohibition on selling sex toys, and whether judges can be nannies.

Interview by Ted Balaker. Shot by Alex Manning and Hawk Jensen. Edited by Paul Detrick.

Approximately nine-and-a-half minutes.

Damon Root with Judge Andrew Napolitano on January 20, 2010

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:00:00 EST

Reason's Damon W. Root appeared on Fox News’ Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano on January 20, 2010 to discuss the Second Amendment, federalism, and the Chicago gun case.

3 Reasons Not To Sweat The Citizens United Ruling

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:00:00 EST

No recent Supreme Court ruling have evoked more liberal fury than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a campaign-finance case involving government censorship of a political documentary called Hillary: The Movie. The Federal Election Commission prevented the anti-Hillary Clinton film from being shown on television just before the 2008 Democratic primaries, a decision that was upheld by lower courts. Siding with The First Amendment, the Court struck down laws regulating independent political advertising by for-profit and non-profit corporations before an election even as they reaffirmed rules about disclosure and disclosures for ads and against direct corporate giving to candidates.

Critics fear that corporations will now overwhelm the political marketplace with commercials and advertisements that will program citizens to vote for whatever agenda "the corprations" want at a given moment.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann railed against the decision, calling it "a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little democracy is left in this democracy" and comparing it to the notorious Dred Scott decision, which ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. His fellow corporate media host at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, exclaimed, "If you are a regular person who has ever made a campaign donation before, forget about ever having to do that again. What's the point?"

Cyberlaw theorist Lawrence Lessig has called for a consitutional amendment to roll back the Citizens United ruling and President Barack Obama called out the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address, proclaiming to a standing ovation:

The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

Is there any truth to some hyperbolic, doomsday scenarios? In a word, no. The Citizens United ruling increases freedom of political speech, not simply for powerful, politically connected corporations like Citigroup, AIG, and the companies that run The New York Times and other media outlets, but for small-pocketed nonprofits such as Citizens United too. If you want to get bent out of shape about something, direct your ire at a massive and constantly growing government that has its hands in virtually every aspect of economic and social life in America.

"3 Reasons Not to Sweat The Citizens United Ruling" was written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.

For Reason.com's archive on the Citizens United case, go here.

Approximately 3.30 minutes. Scroll down for downloadable versions.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel and received automatic notifications when new material goes online.

Napolitano at Reason in DC

dan.hayes@reason.org (Dan Hayes) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:00:00 EST

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is among the fiercest defenders of individual rights. Both in his daily appearances on the country's most-watched cable news network and in a series of books (most recently, A Nation of Sheep), Napolitano consistently and defiantly argues that the only legitimate government is that which respects its citizens rights in all cases.

In late October, Napolitano gave the keynote address at the conference Reason in DC, where he delivered a spellbinding speech that blended a masterful understanding of American history with a blazing outrage at the excesses of the new security state. "Who [is] the greatest violator of the Constitution?" asks Napolitano. "George W. Bush has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln."

Click above to view the Judge's speech (approx. 40 minutes).