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 none profit with a mission. It was found by the Cable Television industry to provide balanced and unedited and nonpartisan coverage of public events. Youve just heard the National Constitution center inspiring motto and we both believe theres no better way to educate the public about the constitution and about the historic occasions that have given it life than by telling the human stories behind these cases. So thats why this series is such a thrill and a privilege to do in clobation with cspan. Its a great pleasure to introduce my friend, a colleague and visionary leader of cspan who has made this series possible, please join me in welcoming susan swain. [ applause ] so glad that youre here. Good evening and thank you for being here. Im a native philadelphian and so glad to be home tonight. How many cspan watch doers we have in the room here . Great. Most of you think about cspan as congress, and Public Policy events but for about 20 years weve also been doing major historical series. In fact mark farkus mark stand up has been the producer for most of these over the years. [ applause ] about a year and a half ago we had just finished one that we really enjoyed a great deal, it was the biographies of the first ladies. It was a year long project for cspan and we were casting about for what to do next. Very fortuitously i was invited by jeff rosen to join the board of trustees of the National Constitution center for their annual dinner in washington, d. C. Justice ruth bader ginnsberg was one of the attendees. She told the story of mr. And mrs. Loving being arrested because they had a interracial marriage. The point is so many cases that get to the Supreme Court have very dramatic human stories behind them. But by the time it goes through all the appeals process and becomes names on dockets a lot of it gets lost and it shouldnt because essentially the Supreme Court is us. So i came back rather on fire about this as mark will tell you, and terry murphy our Vice President of programming, because as you know cspan has actually been lobbying for a long time to have cameras in the Supreme Court something thats been elusive and we struggle all the time to bring the Supreme Court to public. What we doverry friday afternoon when they release their audiotapes of the weeks arguments we put pictures to those and try to do the best we can to tell about the cases on the docket. So this idea of putting together a series looking at landmark cases would allow us to tell you who are interested more about the history of the court, its import on society, impact these cases have had over time and most importantly the dramatic people stories that the court has heard. One thing you learn is that this court is not open to just the wealthy and the powerful but as well learn tonight for petitioners from all walks of society and thats an important lesson for us to understand. So, what i want to show you next is out of that genesis of the Constitution Center dinner and going back and pitching to my colleagues about the fact that we should do this. I want to show you the trailer thats going to introduce the october 5th series landmark cases historic Supreme Court decisions with cspan and Constitution Center. Lets take a look. All persons having business before the honorable Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention. Number 759 earnest petition versus United States. Marbury versus madison is the most famous case. This couple were enslaved here on this land where slavery wasnt legally recognized. Putting the brown decision into effect would take president ial orders. And the presence much federal troops and marshals. And the courage of children. We wanted to pick cases that changed the direction and import of the court in society and that also changed society. So she told them that they would have to have a search warrant. And mrs. Mapp demanded to see the paper and to read it and to see what it was which they refused to do. So she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it and thereafter the Police Officer handcuffed her. I cant imagine a better way to bring constitution to life than by telling the human stories behind great Supreme Court cases. Fred korematsu opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, mr. Korematsu took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Quite often in many of our most famous decisions are one that the court took that were quite unpopular. If you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Landmark cases an exploration of 12 historic Supreme Court cases and the human stories behind them. A new series on cspan produced in cooperation with the National Constitution center. Debuting monday, october 5th at 9 00 p. M. Our partnership with the Constitution Center is really essential to this project because as you can imagine narrowing this down to 12 cases was quite a chore. We had help from many of their experts here. We also went to people in the Legal Community and people really on the right and left to try to find a list that would be inclusive and representative of the great history of the court over this time. But, you know, some of you will equitable with our designates. I hope do you because thats part of the process here is to think about what the court has done and which cases are really important and agree with us or disagree with us on the ones weve chosen. And the Constitution Center is also being invaluable in helping us get the word out. They are part nearing with us for a website that will be full of educational materials about the court, those of you who have children we hope youll introduce their teach towers this all free of charge. So, that all of us can better understand how the court works and its history over the past 200 years. So, at this point tonight what were trying to do is to let you know about it. Ask you to help spread the word about this series and plan on being with us. In cspan style these are interactive live programs. We have sent a individual journalist out to Historic Sites associated with these cases. They have been to dress cots home, for example. And were going bring to it life by showing you some of the history behind it. But well also have some of the best experts at the nation at the table, biographers, historian, Court Experts to tell us about the importance of these cases, take your cause, answer your questions as part of facebook and twitter. Tonight what well do, we just had fun preparing for this, but youll have a group of diverse Court Experts and historians who will help you understand why were so excited about this project because there are some wonderful stories to tell. And with this point one other person i want to introduce you to is our Vice President of programming terry murphy. Terry has been at cspan for 35 years. 34. 34 years. Who is quibbling. This project is very much his. I want to turn the mic macto jeff rosen. Thank you very much for being here. [ applause ] thank you so much, susan. You can tell about our excitement and enthusiasm for this series and now im extremely excited and honored to introduce three of the most astute Court Watchers in america, akhil amar, Michael Baylson and neal katyal. [ applause ] so ladies and gentlemen, this is a very please sit down gentlemen, really great group of friends and scholars and let me introduce them briefly because they are so well known to america. Neal katyal was the former deputy solicitor general of the United States. He has argued major Supreme Court cases, 24 of them, in fact. He is now a law professor at georgetown university, a partner at hogan and hartson and happens to be my brotherinlaw how do you think i got this job . And i am very excited to announce that if this series goes well as we hope it well, then neal and i are going to follow it with another tv series about the Supreme Court that will be called brothers in law. [ laughter ] next to me is my dear friend and First Teacher of constitutional law, akhil amar. Youve seen him before at the Constitution Center where hes a distinguished member of our scholarly advisory board. Hes the most creative and influential constitutional scholar of his generation. He has written many books. He was here just a few months ago to talk about his latest one, which was i cant keep track of the title. The law of the land. It was not in this list which includes the bill of reits, americas constitution, a biography, americas unwritten constitution. You know this is an educational enterprise. Please read his books because its the best way to learn about the constitution. They will transform your knowledge of the constitution and fire you with a passion for learning more about it the way it has me for my entire life im so grateful to this great scholar and teacher. Thank you. Finally were so honored to have judge Michael Baylson. He was appointed to the u. S. District court for the Eastern District of pennsylvania by president george w. Bush in 2002. He sits nearby at the federal courthouse near the constitution senator. He has an extraordinary career which includes serving as an assistant District Attorney under arlen specter, u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of pennsylvania, hes adjunct professor at the university of pennsylvania and he had a great discussion a few months ago with judge ted raykoff about whether or not the u. S. Sentencing system is broken and needs repair. So were glad hes here. We wont get through all 12 cases and in addition to give you a flavor of the cases we want to talk about what its like to argue before the court, what its like to hear the case thats reviewed by the court, and the extraordinary historical and constitutional insights that akhil can give us but i think we do need to begin with marbury versus madison because thats the case that starts off the series and many consider one of the most important cases the court has decided. Akhil, is that conventional wisdom correct that marbury is really all that important . You heard Justice Ginsberg say it was and far be it from me to disagree with her but maybe ill qualify what she said. Were here to talk about the court and this is the National Constitution center. I want you to remember they are not the same. Constitution encompasses all three branches of government. This is a wonderful series focused on the third out of three in the constitution and from a expert perspective marbury which basically stands for the proposition of judicial review courts not just the Supreme Court all courts in appropriate cases and controversies can actually hold even acts of congress unconstitutional if the court feels congress has not acted in a way thats consistent with the constitution. Its an important principle but one that was established actually before marbury, it was pretty well blishd in the american jurisprudence by state courts and previous courts. Marbury is the only case before 1850 in which the Supreme Court ever invalidates an act of congress, striking down state laws a bunch of times, a nation invalidating a stat statute but invalidating happens congress only once in marbury versus madison. Ate technical issue. Many lawyers wouldnt be able to tell you whats at stake, original versus Appellate Jurisdiction which is an arcane thing. Meanwhile, president s of the United States by contrast are vigorously enforcing the constitution with vetoes, 25 vetoes before 1850 one little act of judicial review and not so important an issue. President s are vetoing bills that courts have upheld or would uphold like the bank, and so just to put it into perspective from a certain point of view marbury isnt even the most important constitutional decision of 1803. Most important decision was louisiana purchase. Without that theres no United States of america as we know it today. Just a reminder that as important as courts are, president s who actually under the constitution are supposed to pick the judges and the judges arent supposed to pick the president s but lets see bush v gore, so i want to you remember there are three branches. Congress is first among equals. President s make very important constitutional decision. Courts are important. Judicial review is much more important over the years. In todays world courts loom much larger than in 1803. Today in an average year Supreme Court is striking down one or two acts of congress and considering big ones like obamacare, Death Penalty and abortion. That wasnt true in 1803. Great introduction and remind you marbury has come to hasnt far more today than it did at the time. Susan mentioned we were launching a website with lots of great interactive teaching tools and one of the most exciting of them is one that im thrilled will be launched officially tomorrow here at the Constitution Center with justice breyer. This is an exciting tool because we have with the help of our friends at the Federalist Society which is a leading conservative and Libertarian Organization and the American Constitution Society a leading Progressive Organization assembled the top scholars in america from all perspectives to write about every claw of the constitution and free and online and youll find this on the cspan site and our website. Im praying this will work. You can click on any provision of the constitution, read the top scholars with a common statement about what they agree about its history and meaning and then separate statements about how they disagree. I want to give it a test drive to use it to talk about our next case which is lochner versus new york. Here with flawless ease ill click on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Because thats the one that was at issue in lochner. Heres the 14th amendment. Ill go to the due process clause and it talks first of all we have a text and its really important to read the constitution before you begin thinking about its meaning. And the due process clause says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges are immunities of the citizen of the United States nor shall any state deprive any pers life or liberty without due process of law. And here is the common view of what the due process clause means and they talk about a doctrine called substantive due pros. It sounds like an oxymoron. They mention this case called lochner versus new york. They say in the early debad of the 20th century they used the case as a symbol of this substantive economic due process and say now its wildly revide as an issue of judicial activism. Neal, do you agree with our two scholars that lochner is wildly reviled and tell us why it is and if so what its current significance in constitutional debate is . Yes and no i agree. Lochner is a case coming out of new york in which basically new york said were going to protect bakers and telling bakers they dont have to work more than 60 hours and the like and challenged by the owners of the bakeries who say no we have freedom of contract essential. We should be able to p