Summary: With the recent passage of President Barack Obama's health care legislation, it is time to 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? If the latter, what would it look like? 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? The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2011 Annual Student Symposium on February 26, 2011. Panelists included Prof. William P. Marshall of the University of North Carolina School of Law; Prof. Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Neomi Rao of George Mason University School of Law; and Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Matthew Glover, Speakers and Panels Vice Chair for the University of Virginia Federalist Society.
