What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership?
- February 6, 2016
This article originally appeared in The American Spectator The Supreme Court recently stepped back from its campaign to impose its political preferences on the states. In Evenwel v. Abbott, the justices held while the U.S. Constitution requires states to apportion their legislatures solely by population, the Constitution does not prescribe a particular way of counting
READ MOREBecause of widespread interest in the Article V Information Center’s report on the legality of the “Compact for America” approach to amending the Constitution, we are reprinting it here. Distilled to its essence, the “Compact” approach is unconstitutional because it seeks to change, through state legislative action (statutes and interstate compacts), the amendment procedure specified in
READ MOREWas the Supreme Court right to call Obamacare’s insurance penalty a “tax?”
READ MOREJustice Antonin Scalia was one of the most eloquent opinion writers in the history of the United States Supreme Court–perhaps the greatest of all. His dissents may have been the most powerful ever written. Justice Scalia was more than an outstanding lawyer: He was an perceptive social commentator. In tribute, I reproduce below his
READ MOREThe “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the
READ MOREA few groups pushing constitutional amendments are trying to convince state legislatures to adopt laws and interstate compacts that rely on state authority reserved by the Tenth Amendment. This is a serious mistake—one that likely will lead to defeat in the courts. In a recent article, I pointed out that the courts have held repeatedly
READ MORE