Half a Century of More of the Same
by Connor Boyack, Utah Tenth Amendment Center On August 23, 1958, 46 Chief Justices from the Supreme Courts of the several states gathered together in Pasadena, California. The event drawing their presence was the Conference of Chief Justices, a regular forum for the highest judges in each state to meet and discuss important issues. Their [...]
Welcome to the Constitutional Crisis
Past rulings indicate that judges are, as Jefferson warned, simply people too; with political ambitions and a willingness to apply arbitrary opinions over rule-of-law. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the most recent Supreme Court appointee, publicly argued the merits of rulings based on social justice over rule-of-law. Can an idea be any more dangerous to liberty than that?
The Commerce “Claws” and Obama Care
In 1937, the Supreme Court abandoned its attempt to set limits to the Commerce Clause power and to enforce theTenth Amendment. No longer would the Court be in the business of drawing a line between the federal and state authority, as it had been intended to do. Instead, it would allow Congress to do almost anything it wanted to do on the basis of the Commerce Clause.
Are Federal Health Insurance Mandates Constitutional?
Let us be clear at the outset that federal involvement in health care (except in a few isolated instances, such as federal employee benefits) certainly violates the Constitution as that document was originally understood.
The Marbury v. Madison Mantra
The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they generally start with Marbury.
Rob Natelson: A Constitutional Coup d’etat
In this podcast, Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, the Necessary and Proper clause and incidental powers, and more…
The Supreme Court Scare
the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored.
Is the Supreme Court Supreme?
If asked, who has the final say in our government on the meaning of the Constitution, most people would say, the Supreme Court, but it this right?
The 2nd Amendment and the States
To understand the debate in this topic, it helps to briefly review constitutional history. When the Constitution was first proposed, opponents of the new document criticized it for lacking a bill of enumerated rights, which were common in virtually every state constitution of the time.
Sonia Sotomayor and “Making Policy”
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy†has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era.
Supreme Court isn’t Supreme
Where the Constitution needs to be changed, it should be amended through the process provided in the Constitution, not through a judicial edict.
John Marshall Vs Thomas Jefferson on Constitutional Interpretation
Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction; he felt it would undermine the principle of checks and balances
Turning the Constitution on its Head
With its decision in Nordyke v. King last week, in which the recent Supreme Court Heller decision was applied to state law, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took another step down the long road of “incorporating†the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In doing so, it continued down the path toward completely inverting the model of government to which The People agreed when they ratified the Constitution.
Understanding Limited Government
Kevin Gutzman’s new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, might be the best available overview of the principles of limited government as espoused by the Tenth Amendment. After reading this book, you’ll see quite clearly that the original constitution has very little in common with how this government is run today (if you [...]
Line-Item Veto: An unconstitutional abrogation
The Associated Press Reports: The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the line-item veto, and it’s remarkable how much has changed – particularly the positions of many of the major players. At issue is a watered-down GOP measure that would allow a president to scrutinize spending bills he [...]
Not my Commander in Chief
Cross-Posted from DailyKos.com with permission of the author, Crashing Vor Watching Keith [Olbermann] just now, I heard him mention Antonin “Nino” Scalia’s dissenting opinion from today’s ruling in regards habeas corpus rights for detainees. The lowlight of Justice Scalia’s opinion was the paragraph: “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander [...]
Jun 13, 2008 | Categories:War | Tags: 10th Amendment, commander-in-chief, Executive Power, Guest Commentary, Habeas Corpus, justice-scalis, limited-powers, Louie Ludwig, militar, Positive Grant, president, supreme-court | 5 Comments »