Panel V: Modern Debates, Old Insights: The Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Executive Power

On March 4-5, 2022, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the University of Virginia School of Law hosted the 2022 National Student Symposium.
In the contemporary debates over the nature of executive power, two ideas are perennially prominent and intractably controversial: the unitary executive theory and nondelegation doctrine. While many prominent lawyers and judges have advocated a unitary model of the executive, it is still controversial whether the Constitution requires that the President sit at the top of the executive pyramid. And while the Court has refused to seriously revitalize the nondelegation doctrine in recent cases, voices on and off the bench persist in calling for limits on the executive’s ability to exercise lawmaking power.
While these debates have modern salience, they actually predate the Constitution. Which provokes the question: what did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have to say about these topics? In what ways were their debates different from ours, and in what ways are things the same? How do their discussions shed light on our modern arguments? These questions and more were explored by our learned panelists.
Featuring:
- Moderator: Honorable Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
- Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law-Albert Clark Tate, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
- Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
- Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.