Following the recent passage of President Obama's health care legislation, this panel will reassess whether it is possible to have a welfare state that meshes with the American constitutional tradition. Is the enduring presence of government entitlements antithetical to our system of government, or is there a way to accommodate these programs without changing the historical American relationship between the individual and the government? Will the growing role of government in the United States cause the country to increasingly mirror Europe, or can the nation chart an alternate course? Does the U.S. Constitution's relative lack of positive rights compared to its counterparts around the world pose problems for proponents of an American welfare state? Is the American suspicion toward state entitlements the product of a longstanding philosophical commitment or the result of historical contingency? Are there currently any constitutional limits on the growth of the welfare state? Should there be?
Panelists:
William P. Marshall, University of North Carolina School of Law
Jeremy Rabkin, George Mason University School of Law
Neomi Rao, George Mason University School of Law
Moderator:
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit