The issues raised by National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which provides the Supreme Court with its first opportunity to interpret the Recess Appointments Clause, are easy to misinterpret.Details
You don’t have to have a law degree to interpret the founding document, but it does require some study and some effort. Simply reading the words and trying to squeeze meaning out of them based on our modern understanding of the language can lead to unmitigated interpretive disaster.Details
Judge Andrew Napolitano: “Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.”Details
Nullification is based on the federal nature of our government, on the Supremacy Clause, and most strongly, on the compact nature of the Constitution. Americans are not taught their founding history and are certainly not taught the principles that underlie their government. They talk about “checks and balances” but only the simple ones – the president’s veto power and the federal courts. But the most important of checks and balances is indeed this notion of dual sovereignty and the willingness of states to stand up to unconstitutional conduct by the federal government.Details
Every time a state refuses to help the federal government enforce their laws, the feds’ court gets bigger. They simply do not have the players needed to defend the whole playing field and this lack of resources becomes a penalty in itself. Ultimately, there’s no real need to slap a technical foul on a group of players that can’t stop the other team from scoring.Details
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas has made it tougher for state universities to run their ethnic spoils systems. But not tough enough.
First, the background:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to extend “equal protection of the laws” to their citizens. The primary goal of the Equal Protection Clause was to stop states from discriminating against racial and ethnic groups. But the actual wording of the Clause covers more than just racial and ethnic discrimination.Details
A Nevada man recently filed a federal lawsuit claiming local police violated his rights protected under the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If you had to go look up the Third Amendment, don’t feel bad. You certainly weren’t alone. Americans rarely reference this particular Bill of Rights provision in this modern age.Details
Rob Natelson writes: “There is little more heart-rending than the sorrow of a child.
The sorrow of a child—and of her adoptive parents—created one of the Supreme Court’s more compelling cases this term. I was happy to be cited extensively in one of the opinions. And, much more importantly, happy that the Court acted to minimize the sorrow of the child and of her adoptive parents.”Details
Regrettably, today we have the opposite of what the Framers gave us. Today we have a government that alone decides how much wealth we can retain, how much free expression we can exercise, how much privacy we can enjoy. And since the Fourth of July 2012, freedom has been diminished.
In the past year, all branches of the federal government have combined to diminish personal freedoms, in obvious and in subtle ways. In the case of privacy, we now know that the federal government has the ability to read all of our texts and emails and listen to all of our telephone calls — mobile and landline — and can do so without complying with the Constitution’s requirements for a search warrant. We now know that President Obama authorized this, federal judges signed off on this, and select members of Congress knew of this, but all were sworn to secrecy, and so none could discuss it.Details