May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
The Constitution was adopted amid a belief that government is a public trust.* Does the Constitution require federal and state governments to adhere to formal duties of public trust—that is, to fiduciary duties? In some places, at least, it clearly does: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the states what is
READ MOREThe Constitution was adopted amid a belief that government is a public trust.* Does the Constitution require federal and state governments to adhere to formal duties of public trust—that is, to fiduciary duties? In some places, at least, it clearly does: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the states what is
READ MORENote: This a modified version of an article that appeared at The American Thinker. Two years ago, the Supreme Court declared Obamacare’s penalty for failure to purchase conforming insurance to be a “tax.” Several plaintiffs subsequently sued in federal court arguing that the penalty is invalid for violating the Constitution’s Origination Clause. The Origination Clause
READ MOREIn its recent decision in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court avoided deciding whether Congress, in executing a treaty, could exceed the enumerated powers to which the Constitution otherwise restricts it. For example, if a treaty requires a signatories to make it a crime to use a particular chemical, may Congress pass a law
READ MOREAfter some truly painful reading experiences, I’ve become skeptical of history books written by celebrities. Lynn Cheney is the wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney and thus our former Second Lady. She certainly counts as a celebrity. I was, therefore, skeptical of her new biography, James Madison: A Life Reconsidered. But she won me
READ MORE(This article originally appeared in The American Thinker.) I applaud the result of the recess appointments case and I am happy to have been cited again in a Supreme Court opinion (this time by Justice Scalia). But in several respects the case exemplifies what is wrong with constitutional jurisprudence today. In National Labor Relations Board
READ MORE