Author: Rob Natelson

Rob Natelson is the Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and heads the Institute’s Article V Information Center. He was a law professor for 25 years, serving at three different universities. Among other subjects, he taught Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Advanced Constitutional Law, and First Amendment. He is also the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Montana Policy Institute. Rob is especially known for his studies of the Constitution’s original meaning. His research has carried him to libraries throughout the United States and in Britain, including four months at Oxford. The results have included several break-though discoveries. Click here for more information about Rob

How to reform our dysfunctional federal government

For many members of Congress . . . almost their only job experience has been politics. They can hardly understand how the rest of us live.

How our Constitution was supposed to work: new evidence comes to light

. . . [A]ctivities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction [included] social services . . . education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

Independence Institute helps win court ruling protecting presidential electors

The framers modeled the Electoral College on indirect election systems then prevailing in Scotland and Maryland, in which elector discretion was pivotal.

“Red flag law”—Historically the phrase means a deceptive law not about “safety” at all!

Ironically, by adopting the term “red flag law,” promoters inadvertently admitted their real motive is not safety. This is because the phrase “red flag law” has been proverbial for an enactment masquerading as a safety measure but really passed for more sinister reasons.

Supreme Court to review common anti-school choice rule in state constitutions

Today the constitutions of 26 states contain bans that go well beyond what Blaine wanted. Unlike Blaine’s proposal, those constitutions mandate discrimination against “sectarian” religion.

How “progressive” court decisions promoted the rise of dark money

“Progressive” Supreme Court decisions that led directly or indirectly to the orgy of anonymous spending

A new Supreme Court case on establishment of religion

By the time ratification was complete, the Constitution’s implications for religion were understood: Religious faith was valuable for good government. But government was to treat individual religions equally, as long as they conducted themselves in an orderly manner.