Professor Michael Dorf Delivers Barrett Lecture

Michael C. DorfMichael C. Dorf, the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, delivered the annual Edward L. Barrett, Jr. Lecture on Constitutional Law on November 3, 2016. Speaking to a packed Kalmanovitz Appellate Courtroom audience that included a large turnout of King Hall faculty, Dorf spoke on “The Presidential Election and Constitutional Change.”

Established in 1986 to mark the retirement of Edward L. Barrett, Jr., founding Dean of UC Davis School of Law and a nationally renowned Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure scholar, the Barrett lecture is an annual event that brings renowned legal scholars to King Hall for lectures on topical issues in constitutional law. This year’s lecture was the first since the passing of Dean Barrett, who died in August at the age of 98, and included special recognition of his life and legacy. 

In his opening remarks, Dean Kevin R. Johnson welcomed Dean Barrett’s children Douglas, Susan, and Kent. “I want to thank them for coming,” he said. “I also want to publicly express our gratitude for Dean Barrett’s profound and lasting contributions to the School of Law. It is no exaggeration to say that were it not for Ed Barrett, UC Davis School of Law might not be.  No one person has had a deeper or more lasting influence in shaping the culture and success of King Hall.”

Dorf began his remarks with a personal anecdote about Dean Barrett and how his casebook, Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials, had been useful to him as a young law professor who wanted to make sure his students would “get it.”

In his lecture, Dorf said that “the outcome of the presidential election matters a great deal for constitutional law, but its main relevance may not run through judicial appointments.” He talked about how social movements, landmark legislation, and other factors have influenced the course of constitutional law, and suggested that this would continue to be the case regardless of the election’s outcome—though the election remained profoundly important.

“When I say that the importance of the presidential election for constitutional change does not run chiefly through judicial appointments, I do not mean to say that the election is unimportant,” said Dorf, speaking just days prior to the vote. “Quite the opposite, in fact. It is partly because the non-judicial constitutional stakes in this election are so high that the judicial stakes look somewhat modest to me.”

 

Primary Category

Tags