CJE Videos and Podcasts
The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to empower the federal government—including particularly federal courts—to stamp out a culture of lawless tyranny and oppression in the South by enforcing basic civil rights of newly freed blacks and their white supporters. This culture of oppression took many forms, including widespread censorship, the systematic disarmament of freedmen and white unionists, and the wholesale denial of economic liberty. At the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court effectively deleted from the Constitution in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases. Today, that judicial error continues to take its toll on important freedoms like private property and the right to earn an honest living, which receive virtually no protection from courts despite their obvious importance to ensuring the economic autonomy of the freedmen following the Civil War and all Americans today.
Clark Neily explains the concept of judicial engagement and shows why judicial abdication is a far greater danger than Ed Whelan's concerns regarding so-called judicial activism.
IJ's Chip Mellor explains what an engaged judge does, and what the limits of precedent are.
A License to Shampoo? Clark Neily explains how a properly engaged judiciary is vital for enforcing the constitutional right to earn a living.
An 80-year-old barber cutting hair for 50 years now is told he has to go back to school.
The Institute for Justice launches the Center for Judicial Engagement to educate the public about the importance of fully engaged judges who will protect our constitutional rights and limit the size of government.
IJ Senior Attorney Clark Neily on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch
IJ Senior Attorney Clark Neily explains the difference between judicial engagement and judicial abdication, and how widespread judicial abdication poses a serious danger to the constitutional rights of all Americans.