Biggest cases, we have a stellar panel. [inaudible] and david cole, he is another law professor at georgetown. And the left side of the court the last time did a lot of winning. That happened only on the two mementos cases involving samesex marriage and the availability of subsidies on the federal health care exchange, but in almost every big case decided last term. Justice kennedy was the justice that usually joined this side of the court in those cases and the chief justice and even Justice Thomas occasionally have provided the victory. And with Justice Kennedy key vote in most cases. And the thing is how big will this be. And a fair number of big cases, the court is going to have a choice between broad and narrow grounds for decision. And this is determined by which path the court chooses to take in those cases and we have on our agenda 10 cases that they are likely to hear this term although we may not get to them all. And after they discuss each case, the press will be invited wit
Party chairmen of the i would find it i would be shocked if the court which is not a necessary and says it has to be total population in this case. They dont need to decide that to resolve this case. They can leave it open. If it becomes a problem they can reach it at some later time. Questions from the press. My question is for hashim. You kept saying voters and suggested [inaudible] arent asking for voters or are they asking for citizen voting age population . The cameras are asking that if you have questions come to the mic. Its not being picked up. Im sorry. I will mumble it now. You kept saying voters and suggested, for example, that prisons in rural areas would not be counted because they are felons. But are they asking for voters that are literally eligible to vote or of asking for citizen age voting population . Results are different. So the brief is a little come the plaintiffs a brief vessel agnostic about. As i read it there focus on eligible voters. There are a lot of diffe
Also participating in this discussion at the National Constitution center akhil amar of yale law school, and neal katyal a former acting solicitor general. Judge Michael Baylson a senior federal judge with the u. S. District court of the Eastern District of pennsylvania. And moderating, Jeffrey Rosen, president and ceo. [ applause ] ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Constitution center. I am Jeffrey Rosen the president of this wonderful institution which is the only institution in america chartered by congress to die simi nature information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis and tonight were thrilled to be introducing live on cspan a Wonderful Partnership with our dear cspan friends for a new series called landmark cases that will explore the human stories behind 12 of the most historic and frequently cited and important cases in Supreme Court history. This partnership with cspan is so important to us because nike the National Constitution center cspan is a
Models for departments for the federal government are very organizational, departmentalspecific. When we talk about trying to understand and bring data together and consolidate, i know treasury is doing a great deal of work on this as well, trying to figure out how do you move the data between systems, but then how do you move the data not just between those systems but between the systems outside of the federal government. That becomes a cultural shift that has to happen. And its going to take a lot of buyin to make that work. But that will allow for i think a much Greater Movement of information and data across the government, which will make it more valuable for everyone. Actually just one more thing to add there. On the reretrieval side of things, theres two big things that prevent us from fully automating the work we do. One is, even if the data is available online, oftentimes you need to submit some sort of form or theres some sort of limit on how many rows of data can be downloa
Views of social and governmental policy which in many ways is entirely possible that when he served four years from now having this conversation with my grandson, during the 3rd edition we could look back on the late 20th century has a timeless constitutionally questionable. It is certainly much debated a hot topic debate. Ii think it is possible that we will view the issues of today as were it might have gone awry. Yes. Partly i think controversy is a little bit of a copout because every generation has had a big controversy. The difference with the modern era is we are a little more careful about not taking a position on it because we are not sure where it is going. A few questions about specific provisions. I will go through a few. Thethe Second Amendment was essentially based on the founders fears of standing armies. Yes. Next. Well, let me try and give the short version. The Second Amendment is a fascinating amendment. The political purpose was fear of a Central National army. If t