- June 11, 2017
Rob’s new research demonstrates that bans on “sectarian” aid were . . . designed to require state officials to discriminate in favor of mainstream Protestantism and against any faiths they deemed “bigoted” or “extreme.”READ MORE
But let’s face it: The election of almost any of the major presidential candidates other than avowed socialist Bernie Sanders probably would have triggered a similar boom. It might have been greater under a President Rubio or President Kasich or less under a President Clinton. But the upsurge would have come because its principal cause has not been who was elected, but who has departed.
Those departed are Barack Obama and an administration comprised largely of soft-totalitarian “progressives” who showed little respect for the rule of law during their eight-year reign.
Economists across the political spectrum agree that the rule of law is key to a healthy economy, particularly in developed countries. When legal rules are clear and predictable, investors are more willing to risk their capital than when rules are fuzzy and subject to random change.READ MORE
This article presents original research on the nineteenth century meaning of the word sectarian. The author argues that, based on this new evidence, bans on sectarian aid in state constitutions—often called Blaine Amendments—are likely unconstitutional on their face because they discriminate among religions.READ MORE
[T]he Hamilton Electors have good cause to claim the mantle of originalism.READ MORE
Rob’s research, published in the 2008 article, showed convincingly that Justice Thomas was right to be skeptical.READ MORE
Comments from [the ratification] debates generally show that the ratifiers understood presidential electors were to exercise their own judgment when voting.READ MORE