The Federalist Society: 'Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring'

Source:The Federalist Society- holding an event about the Arab Spring, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

"The Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring" on Saturday, November 12, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention.

Environmental Law: Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring

10:45 a.m. -- 12:15 p.m.

State Room - Overflow: Senate Room

--Mr. Hernando de Soto, President, Institute for Liberty and Democracy

--Prof. Steven J. Eagle, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

--Prof. John D. Echeverria, Professor of Law and Acting Director Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School

--Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law

--Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit... 

From The Federalist Society

Property rights are essential in a democracy, especially in a liberal democracy, because it's one way people can limit the power of government, because they have property and they can limit what government can do to them. 

In America government has to have permission under law and the U.S. Constitution to enter or take property from individuals. Without property rights the State would essentially own everything. Even the Communist Republic of Cuba has now recognized the need for property rights in a functioning society. 

The Federalist Society: 'A Federal Sunset Law'

Source:The Federalist Society- Professor William Eskridge: Yale Law School.

"In the years since the New Deal and the Great Society, a huge number of federal statutes have been enacted into law and have become permanent fixtures of American life.  Repealing these statutes is politically impossible because one needs a majority of the House of Representatives, sixty votes in the Senate, and the President's signature to repeal a law.  The cumbersome mechanisms of bicameralism, the Senate filibuster, and the President's veto, which were meant to ensure limited government, now serve the wholly different purpose of entrenching big government by making federal laws immortal.  This panel will consider whether Congress should pass a general federal sunset law that would require that most federal statutes sunset after ten or twenty years unless they are re-enacted by the two Houses of Congress together with the President.  Arguably, such a law would return us to the Framers' vision where small government was entrenched instead of big government being entrenched.  Many states have adopted sunset laws, and maybe now it is time for the federal government to follow their good example.  Thomas Jefferson once proposed that even the Constitution itself should sunset every 20 years -- an idea that James Madison wisely rejected.  But even if the Constitution ought not to sunset and even if a few landmark laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ought not to sunset, surely most federal laws ought to be periodically in need of being reenacted.  This panel will examine that question.This panel was featured as Showcase Panel IV at the 2011 National Lawyers Convention on November 12, 2011." 

From The Federalist Society

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) deliberately designed a governmental system and Federal Government to make it difficult for them to pass laws. And more difficult to make the Federal Government more powerful and intrusive, with things like the the three co-equal branches, executive, that carries out laws and can propose them. 

Congress that writes laws and oversees the other two branches including themselves. The Judicial Branch that obviously decides cases in the criminal and civil justice system. And sometimes passes on cases as well as ruling on the constitutionality of laws that the executive and legislative passes. And of course forcing the executive and legislative branches to work together to pass new laws. 

This is what checks and balances are about to make it difficult to pass laws and even harder to pass laws. Because even if one party controls both the White House and Congress, if the opposition party has enough Senate seats, they can block legislation that the Senate majority party is trying to pass. And even if one party controls both the Administration and Congress, to amend our Constitution, that takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, as well as 67 states to pass and amend the Constitution. 

The Federalist Society: Richard Epstein- Redistribution of Wealth

Source:The Federalist Society- Cato Institute Fellow Richard Epstein.

"The Federalist Society presented this panel discussion on Redistribution of Wealth at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2009. Panelists included Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University Law School; Mr. Steve Forbes, Chairman and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Editor of Forbes Magazine; Prof. Jed Rubenfeld of Yale Law School; Mr. Andrew L. Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union; and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as the moderator. Part 3 of 11." 

From The Federalist Society

If you understand the actual definition of redistribution of wealth and not the political definition of it, you know that there's always been at least some amount of wealth redistribution. And chances are if you live in America, that you believe in at least some form of wealth redistribution. 

If you go by the political definition of wealth redistribution, then you got this idea that it's about robbing the rich to give to the poor. But again if you know the actual definition of wealth redistribution, you know that it essentially means to take money from one area to give to another. And if done right, you take money from an area that has a large surplus of money to give to an area that doesn't have enough. 

To use as examples- building schools, military bases, roads, bridges, etc, is wealth redistribution, because you are taking money from New York to build a road or bridge in Alabama. (Or use whatever two states you want to use) Or if people are unemployed and are collecting Unemployment Insurance, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to give that money to people who are unemployed. 

Or with Social Security and Medicare, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to help finance the retirements of people who are retired. 

These are all forms of wealth redistribution and if you are against these things, then you would be in a small minority. And even in a small minority in the Republican Party. The question to me is not whether we have wealth redistribution or not, because of course we do and have always had, the questions for me would be, how much of it should we have. And what we should be using it for. 

Since wealth redistribution is usually talked about in how it relates to poverty, I'll focus on that in this post and go from there and to start out I'm not in favor of taking money from the rich or anyone else, to take care of the poor. 

What I am in favor of is using some of this revenue, to help the poor empower themselves to become self- sufficient and that gets to temporary financial assistance, education, and Job Placement, things like Welfare to Work (or TANF) as well as retraining low-income workers on the job so they can move up in their company's and not be stuck working dead in jobs their whole lives. 

We should also be retraining unemployed workers so they can can get jobs in other fields, especially if they lost a job or in a job in a field thats gone and is not coming back as a result of free trade or company relocation. And doing all of these things cost resources and the money has to come from somewhere. 

And I rather take that money from America then borrow it from Russia or China. It's not a question of whether we have Wealth Redistribution or not, because of course we do and we've always had, but it's a question of how much wealth redistribution we should have. And what's the purpose of it and how we can best spend this money that will do the most good for the country.