Wednesday, June 24, 2015

SPS 2015: Taking a Closer Look at the Constitution

Speaker Mr. Stimson leading an examination of the Constitution
The students of the School of Public Service Class of 2015 have spent the past two days taking a closer look at the Constitution and its intersection with law and policy.   SPS '15 started the day yesterday with a visit from Mr. Cully Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager of the National Security Law Program at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C. think tank.  Those members of the SPS '15 class contemplating a career in law got a fine introduction to the Socratic method, as Mr. Stimson took the students through an exploration of the Constitutional authority for the waging of war and armed conflict.

Later in the day, SPS '15 visited the leading D.C. libertarian think tank The Cato Institute, where Constitutional Scholar Roger Pilon, the founder and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies spoke on issues of constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy and fielded some very impressive questions from our young legal scholars.  Mr. Pilon and Cato were kind enough to provide the group with pocket copies of the Constitution to take home.

This focus on the text and interpretation of the Constitution is coming in handy today during the annual mock Supreme Court argument of a case from the current U.S. Supreme Court calendar.  SPS '15 has spent the day prepping for roles as lawyers and justices in the Obergefell case concerning same-sex marriages.  Teams of "attorneys" are arguing the issues of (1) whether states may constitutionally ban same-sex marriage; and (2) if so, whether such states may also refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states in which such marriages are legal.
Attorney Michael T. making a federalism argument

Attorney Elizabeth M. fields a question from the Justices

Justice Doran questions an attorney

Attorney Kieran H. makes an analogy
Attorney Domonic H. argues on the marriage recognition issue

Attorney Jain sums up her argument