Constitutional Change in Mexico

Mexican democracy is at a crossroads. In the center stage of the current dynamic and challenging times lies the Mexican Constitution, one of the oldest and most amended in the world. Enacted in 1917, it was the product of a social revolution. During its long life, the Mexican Constitution was functional for the long period of authoritarian hegemonic-party regime, but it was also key in the protracted transition to democracy. The constitution is now the locus of acute tensions between legitimate demands for inclusion, social and economic, and the stability of the rules for accessing and exercising political power. The destination of Mexican democracy is uncertain, but the patterns and ways of more than a hundred years of constitutional change reveal surprising clues.

The Unfortunate Consequences of a Misguided Free Speech Principle with Robert Post

Are Americans “losing their appetite for candid and constructive dialogue?” Robert Post, Yale Law professor, argues that we have misdiagnosed America’s social malady as a free speech problem, when the challenges to free speech in America are more a symptom than a cause of the problems  we are experiencing in the public sphere. The decline in the nature and quality of our public discourse is not a problem that more free speech will necessarily resolve. Instead, Post claims that “our public discourse has become rancid because our politics has become diseased.” In order to heal and ameliorate our public discourse, we must restore our politics to a healthy condition. Join us for a discussion about the relationship between politics and free speech.

Originalism and The Rights of Women

Proponents of originalism argue that judges must adhere faithfully to the meaning of constitutional texts as those texts would have been understood at the time of their adoption.  In the case of the 14thAmendment, such an approach would limit clauses like “equal protection of the laws” to nineteenth century understandings of equality.  Since women were not equal to men under the law in 1868, and since the framers of the 14th Amendment did not advance gender equality as one of its purposes, originalism poses a quandary for women’s rights in the 21stcentury.  Can originalism be squared with constitutional protections for women under the 14th Amendment?  This distinguished panel of scholars and judges addresses this important topic as the conservative majority on U.S. Supreme Court adopts originalism as its dominant method of constitutional interpretation.

Can Courts Save Democracy?

In partnership with the Phoenix Committee on Foreign Relations, the Center for Constitutional Design hosts a discussion on the ability of courts to halt democratic decay and support the institutions of democracy. Associate Professor and Deputy Director Tom Daly (Melbourne School of Government), Professor and Senior Fellow in Global Democracy Larry Diamond (Stanford University), and Professor Jeffrey K. Staton (Emory University) who co-authored the recently published Can Courts be Bulwarks of Democracy, make up the panel.

From: Can Courts Save Democracy?

Originalism and its Discontents

ASU Law’s The Center for Constitutional Design hosted four constitutional law experts for a discussion and critique of originalism as a theory of constitutional interpretation and the future of constitutional analysis in U.S. Courts.

From: Originalism and its Discontents

State Level Conflicts

Some state attorneys general played a major role in litigation over the results of the 2020 election, signing on to amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging election fraud—even in their own states. At the same time, secretaries of state defended the results of their elections and often found themselves in conflict with attorneys general (or state solicitors) over the integrity of their states’ election results.

From: Conference on Elections and Federalism