Thanks for visiting our website. I invite you to explore the site and use it as a resource to learn more about the Federalist Society in general, and to keep up-to-date with things happening with the WSU chapter. Information about upcoming events and interesting items in the news will be available on the home page, and there often are some good conversations happening on our forum pages - both about planning for events, and about all kinds of things happening in the news and at WSU. You'll also find in the Chapter Discussion Forum the excellent summary of our recent Organizational Meeting.  We hope people from all political and ideological perspectives will join us for our meetings and events - the core function of our chapter is to promote debate on the issues of the day, so the bigger variety of people we have, the better! We'll see you around!

I ran across the video of a debate co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society earlier in the year involving Justices Scalia and Breyer. The debate is about an hour and a half long, but it is a few hours well spent.

The video is available here. I encourage anyone who's interested to watch it as it is thought provoking, informative, and entertaining.

 Neutral Views on Net Neutrality

On Tuesday, September 25, the Wayne State University Federalist Society hosted “Net Neutrality,” a policy discussion about how best to keep the internet free. Professor Jonathan Weinberg of
Wayne State University Law School debated the issues against Ms. Diane Katz of the
Mackinac Center, while Professor Derek Bambauer moderated. The event was a tremendous success, and a sign of great things to come for the Wayne Federalist Society!

After everyone had an opportunity to load up on pizza and carbonated beverages (courtesy of the Wayne Federalist Society), Professor Bambauer introduced the panelists. The first speaker—none of than
Wayne’s own Professor Weinberg—appeared ready to capitalize on his home turf advantage! Professor Weinberg began by providing a brief overview of the history of the Internet. According to Weinberg, the unregulated nature of today’s Internet is not a new phenomenon, and can be traced back to the 1980’s. Weinberg explained that in the early 80’s, the FCC decided not to become involved in regulating the fledgling Internet. Although the Internet and supporting technologies became more advanced, the government continued to adopt a “hands-off” approach to the Internet. It is against this backdrop that AT&T and Verizon climbed to the top as the two dominant broadband providers in the
United States. According to Weinberg, AT&T wants to shift users to a cell phone-like experience where customers will no longer be able to access unlimited web content, but would instead purchase content packages providing differing levels of access. At the same time, AT&T would contract with individual websites to carry website content. Professor Weinberg argued that this type of scheme would lead to economic inefficiencies. In order to prevent it, and in order to ensure a competitive market, he argued, the government should impose net neutrality rules.

Ms. Katz vigorously disagreed. According to Ms. Katz, net neutrality is a “pernicious proposal,” which puts the current “regulatory oasis” “under siege.” Ms. Katz argued that net neutrality would force providers to treat all data on the network the same, and that this would infringe upon property rights and the freedom of speech. According to Ms. Katz, the pipelines through which the content flows are private property, and the providers (as well as websites) have a right to control the content that is offered. Moreover, Ms. Katz argued that additional regulations are unnecessary because the market is already regulated through the activities of consumers, advertisers, and other participants. Ms. Katz also argued that additional government regulation of the Internet could neutralize incentives to invest.

After Ms. Katz’s argument, each speaker was given time for a brief rebuttal. The rebuttals were electric—they allowed the passion of each speaker to come through, while simultaneously highlighting the main disagreements.

In all, 26 people attended the “Net Neutrality” policy discussion. Thanks to everyone involved for making it a great event!

The WSU Center for the Study of Citizenship hosts an annual Constitution Day and Citizenship Lecture. This year's lecture will be delivered by Wayne Law Professor Brad R. Roth , and is entitled "Detaining Them Beyond Our Boundaries: Enemy Combatants and the Quest for a Law-Free Zone," referring to the United States Military's practice of holding enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay.

Professor Roth participated in a Federalist Society debate last year on a similar subject with Professor Michael Lewis. The event was successful and very popular and, if you missed it, we would urge you to attend the Constitution Day lecture.

Professor Roth's presentation is scheduled for Monday, September 17 from 4:00-5:30 p.m. in the Spencer M. Partrich Auditorium at the Law School. Please visit the Center for the Study of Citizenship's website for more information.

UPDATE:

The podcast of Professor Roth's speech is available here .

What is the Federalist Society?
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by a small group of law students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and the University of Chicago. These students were greatly dissatisfied with the academic climate on their campuses and wanted to create a forum for debate on a wider range of viewpoints than they were being exposed to in the course of their studies. Among the Society’s founding members were former U.S. Senator and Michigan native Spencer Abraham, former U.S. Congressman David McIntosh, and Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University. The Society’s founding faculty advisor was Antonin Scalia, now a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

The Wayne State University Chapter of the Federalist Society was established in 1987 by the late Professor Joseph D. Grano. Since that time, the Society has grown to include chapters at over 200 law schools, both in the United States and abroad, and has become a major force in legal education and the legal profession at large. The national organization is currently composed of over 35,000 members, and boasts Lawyers Division Chapters in 70 cities, including Detroit and Grand Rapids.

The Society was founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. We seek both to promote an awarene ss of these principles and to further their application through our activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

The Federalist Society’s commitment to discussion and debate is something for which it has been recognized time and again. Polar political opposites have praised the Society for its work. Judge Robert Bork has remarked, “the Federalist Society has done more for the health of the law than any organization that I have witnessed in my career.” ACLU President Nadine Strossen has also praised the Society, stating “…I think one thing [the Federalist Society] has definitely done is to contribute to free speech, free debate, and most importantly, public understanding of, awareness of, and appreciation of the Constitution.” Thomas Sowell remarked that it “is an enormously refreshing and hopeful sign to see the young people who make up the membership of the Federalist Society. Earnest, young, and unpretentious, these are the young men and women of whom any nation could be proud.”

The Wayne Federalist Society hopes to continue this tradition of dedication to thoughtful and intelligent discussion as we celebrate the Chapter’s twentieth anniversary in the coming year, and we invite you to join us.

Sincerely,

The Wayne Federalist Society Executive Board

“The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”