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…Details
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.Details
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayorâ€™s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals â€œmakes policyâ€ 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.Details
Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction; he felt it would undermine the principle of checks and balancesDetails
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 â€œincorporatingâ€ the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendmentâ€™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.Details
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 todayâ€™s opinion plays upon the Nationâ€™s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
While others will surely spend countless hours and buckets of ink and pixels debating the merits or madness of the second sentence, I’ve a bone to pick with the first.
Scalia has, over the years, demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court. His devotion to the concept of “originalism” selectively ignores the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, key components of the document as “originally” ratified. The codicil to the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, in which the nation’s ultimate appeals court, where all legal precedent is finally decided, declares that the judgment in that case is not, in fact, legal precedent.Details
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 haven’t noticed already!) The 10th Amendment has been pushed aside and the federal government runs rampant – exercising powers that the founders would never have dreamed of giving to any politician.Details
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 â€“ 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…Details