The "Good For Your Constitution" Debate and Lecture Series
Discussions of the legal and political theories embodied within the founding documents of our lively experiment

Milton Friendman's Hundredth Birthday Bash!

The approach is a little more informal than our typical Good for your Constitution sessions, but hope you'll join us for a social event with a little intellectual content on:

Tuesday, July 31st at 6:30 PM at Nick-A-Nees, 75 South Street, in the jewelry district of Providence.

We're going to start at 6:30 on Tuesday evening with a brief program featuring John Tomasi who pioneered the Political Theory Project at Brown University. He will introduce his work, Free Market Fairness, reconciling beliefs in economic liberty, like Friedman's, with a liberal respect for securing the capacity of responsible self authorship for all our fellows and a concern for just outcomes relative to the least fortunate. This is groundbreaking work integrating libertarian and liberal philosophies, and propelling Tomasi to the head of the debate over whether any such reconciliation is really possible.  Because Tomasi himself hails from the classic liberal tradition, we are engaged in a search for a modern liberal foil to offer critique of his presentation. And the setting and musical denouement promise a diverse audience that may engage him as well. 

While there is a great deal of abstraction in his approach, Tomasi continually returns to real world ideas and metaphors. He proceeds with a reticence that reflects the problems of phiiosophy as a flyover discipline, trying to theoretically debate morals for systems to govern a real world. Most especially, his insights on work as an important defining pursuit speak to me in a way that made pursuing his ideas for Free Market Fairness across 250 pages well worth the effort. With support from the Friedman Foundation for School Choice, we've been able to purchase some copies of John's book to distributed at a deep discount afterwards for those who dare to follow. 

But before much more than an hour has gone by, the stage will give way to our good friends The Village Jammers.  You might call them a gypsy swing quartet but it is just as safe to call their original music uncategorizable. and infectious. 

Hope to see you there to enjoy an evening with John Tomasi and great music from The Village Jammers.

Brian Bishop - Birthday Bash Coordinator

The mission of the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights is to protect the rights that Americans recognize as fundamental.The center litigates in areas of fiscal responsibility and transparency, school choice. free speech, and property rights to assist individuals the government has harmed, and ensure all Rhode islanders enjoy their constitutional rights.  

---

Reckoning: Unwinding 38 Studios

The Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights is proud to announce the second of its ongoing “Good For Your Constitution” lecture and debate series. As free market advocates, our objection to the 38 Studios deal was not based on specific risk. Rather we objected to the unprincipled nature of the EDC winner picker model of support for signature businesses – whether employed in perceptually successful cases such as Fidel- ity or flops like 38 Studios. Our concern at this juncture is not to join the political chorus attempting to assign blame or examine the connected insiders who benefitted from the deal. Rather, we seek to  encourage the state to apply due diligence to unwinding 38 Studios (and perhaps EDC itself) that it did not apply to getting into the deal in the first place. Presently, the public and many policymakers consider the 38 Studios legislation as evidence that the taxpayers are now ‘on the hook’ for the losses.  As a matter of law, this appears inaccurate. It is constitution- ally impossible for a sitting legislature to pledge financial support from a future legislature. This violates both the constitutional bar on borrowing without a referendum of the people and the republican principle of elected representation. If newly elected representatives cannot change policy set by previous legislatures, then elec- tions are essentially meaningless. 
While the Private Placement Memorandum for the 38 Studios bonds issued by Rhode Island’s Eco- nomic Development Corporation runs to 332 pages, the ‘money’ quote is in all caps on the first page: 
“THE 2010 BONDS . . . DO NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT, LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF THE STATE . . . THE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND IS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION .” 
 It is not simply abstract constitutional second guessing that suggests the fate of the 38 Studios bond- holders is a policy question and not a question of law. The panel will compare the legal theories undergirding pension reform to this context. In so doing the Stephen Hopkins Center hopes to remind policymakers that the reliance of bondholders upon the state to make good on promissory policy with regards to 38 Studios is very similar to the reliance that state employees placed upon receiving, from a later legislature, pensions promised by an earlier one. 
Our panelists do not present this caveat as a ‘get out of jail free’ card. There are policy ramifications to however Rhode Island choses to address this situation, with options ranging from no support for bondhold- ers to paying out the issue in full, or hybrids such as backing the investors’ capital but not their interest. To date, public discourse has focused on ‘how did we get into this’ and ‘how to avoid this in the future’, important questions, but not the policy imperatives of our immediate predicament.  Indeed, the Rhode Island Senate has suggested it will convene after the 4th of July to consider refilling the EDC board. Is that a good idea without first addressing this elephant in the room? The Stephen Hopkins Center is proud to present a panel on issues that need to be addressed right now - because our state’s economic future cannot await our summer vacations. Join a lively panel intended for the press, the policymakers and the public. 

The mission of the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights is to protect the rights that Americans recognize as fundamental.The center litigates in areas of fiscal responsibility and transparency, school choice. free speech, and property rights to assist individuals the government has harmed, and ensure all Rhode islanders enjoy their constitutional rights. 

---

Lunch with Constitutional Litigator and Georgetown University Law Professor Randy Barnett

Come join the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights for lunch as we welcome constitutional litigator and Georgetown University Law Professor Randy Barnett for a discussion of the lasting contributions made to liberty by our nation's sixth Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase. Then join Brown's political theory project Prof. Barnett's debate with Harvard Law Prof. Charles Fried as they tackle the topic "We, the Insured: Is the Healthcare Mandate Constitutional?"

The mission of the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights is to protect the rights that Americans recognize as fundamental.The center litigates in areas of fiscal responsibility and transparency, school choice. free speech, and property rightsto assist individuals the government has harmed, and ensure all Rhode islanders enjoy their constitutional rights.

---

Judicial Review in Deepwater: Is “Hard Look” review the implementation of, or inimical to, the separation of powers?

Last December, the Founders Project at the Ocean State Policy Research Institute filed an Amicus Brief urging the Rhode Island Supreme Court to apply the tenets of “Hard Look” review to the Economic Development Corporation’s advisory opinion in the case of In re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, better known as the Deepwater case. This matter is to be heard by the court on Wed., May 11th. This judicial doctrine that constitutes a reconciliation between the notions of substantive due process in administrative cases and the exceedingly deferential rational basis standards, cf. Lochner and Caroline Products, is most associated with the tutelage of Harold Leventhal while he sat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Speaking to the DC Bar Association on the emergence of “hard look” as a hybrid of substantive procedural review, a later member of that court, Patricia Wald, summarized Levanthal’s view as the notion that:
“reviewing courts . . . should wade in and confront the arcane and sometimes exotic expertise of agency bureaucrats to guarantee they have indeed engaged in reasoned decisonmaking, not political trading, institutional bias, or private preferences.”
Naturally, this is music to the ears of those of us who consider that just such trading, bias and preference permeate the proceedings relative to National Grid’s contract with Deepwater Wind. But, it should be recalled that much of the original concern giving rise to “hard-look” was that administrators would favor the economic status quo over newly minted environmental and consumer legislation. What emerges is the extent to which “hard look” is a procedural tool in effect, if nonetheless a substantive inquiry. It doesn’t favor business over ecology, or vice versa, but ensconces a certain cyncism regarding the extent to which contemporary fads and factions can drive administrative decision making, whatever their ideological composition.
The foregoing must be conceded to be the argument of those advancing “hard look” in this case. The alternative view is that “hard look” is a beard for judicial activism under which the court is usurping roles unsuited to the judicial branch.
Administrative agencies present a difficult challenge for the application of the separaton of powers and “hard-look” can be simultaneously viewed as established a proper check and balance to unelected decisionmakers, or the court inappropriately inserting itself into policymaking.
At a preliminary hearing in the Deepwater Case, Chief Justice Suttell highlighted this tension when he reached past the standing question at issue to voice his concern that setting aside the contract, or the law that mandated it, would leave RI without a policy. This itself can be read two ways. Fealty to legislative policymaking, or a bias that a new policy is superior to the status quo.
To address this dualism we are most proud to invite the critique of Professor Steven Calabresi, one of the country’s foremost constitutional theorists and a co-founder of the Federalist Society -- whose patron saint, James Madison, is considered the author of the American system of separated powers.
Having gained an early reputation with his students of constitutional law at Brown for a balanced and thorough approach, we fully expect that his presentation will address both the strong and weak points of our argument, and encourage Rhode Island’s legal and policy community along with its entire citizenry to attend and welcome Professor Steven Calabresi to the political theory discourse of our state, even as he has already enriched that at Brown University.

The mission of the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights is to protect the rights that Americans recognize as fundamental.The center litigates in areas of fiscal responsibility and transparency, school choice. free speech, and property rightsto assist individuals the government has harmed, and ensure all Rhode islanders enjoy their constitutional rights.

Case Suggestions and Requests

The Stephen Hopkin's Center for Civil Rights provides free and reduced cost legal representation to Rhode Islanders whose constitutional rights are violated by government. Because our resources are limited, we must carefully choose among meritorious cases that will create broadly applicable precedents, with a primary focus on the Rhode Island Constitution.


We do not take the following types of cases:

• criminal cases
• cases against private parties
• most cases involving financial claims against the government
• fact-specific or factually complex cases that are not likely to produce broadly applicable precedents
• cases involving governmental conspiracies
• cases that are already in court
• cases outside of Rhode Island

If you believe your case fits within the parameters for consideration, email [email protected]. Please give your contact information and relevant information regarding your case. Also, please note that we cannot take case inquiries over the phone or in person.

We welcome all inquiries, but due to the large number of inquiries submitted, we are not always able to respond to each one.  If your inquiry falls within our area of expertise, we will make every effort to respond as time and resources permit. Please understand that we cannot provide legal advice unless we agree to take your case.

Learn more about the Stephen Hopkins Center's legal cases here.

If you are interested in donating to the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights please E-mail [email protected].