728 x 90
728 x 90
728 x 90
728 x 90
728 x 90

Signing_of_Constitution_Chandler_Christy_smThe Constitutional Studies Center combines careful, objective scholarship into the original understanding of the Constitution with advocacy for human freedom under law. It produces books, issue papers, articles, and legal briefs reporting the results of its research. Since 2010, the Center has had enormous influence on constitutional law cases and commentary, but also on policy makers and grass roots activists. For example, the Center’s research findings galvanized the massive and growing “Article V” movement to restore constitutional limits on the federal government.

Latest Posts

  • TABOR Endangered?0

    • August 12, 2012

    Die-hards attacking Coloradans’ constitutional right to personally vote on tax increases won an unexpected victory in federal court when Judge William J. Martinez found that their lawsuit is justiciable. That means the case can proceed to the merits. Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) was adopted in 1992, and has been tattered by hostile lawsuit

  • Yes, the Supreme Court’s Medicaid Decision was Good Contract Law0

    • August 5, 2012

    In NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) a 7-2 majority voided that part of the law that required states to join the Medicaid expansion or lose all (not just a part) of their Medicaid funds. The court treated the federal-state Medicaid relationship as a contract. It essentially held that while the states had granted the

  • Obamacare Decision Suggests U.S. Malpractice Bill Unconstitutional0

    • July 27, 2012

    Little-noticed amid the commentary on the Supreme Court’s health care decision is the decision’s blow to congressional efforts to federalize medical malpractice law—a potential element of the Republican plan to “replace Obamacare.” Medical malpractice cases, like most areas of civil justice, traditionally are judged by state courts under state law rather than by the national

  • New Article: James Madison, Federal Overreaching, and Amendments Conventions0

    • July 21, 2012

    The writings of James Madison still offer useful guidance for states seeking to restrain federal overreaching. Akron Law Review has just published my short article discussing the evolution of Madison’s thought on the subject—from Federalist No. 46, through the Virginia Resolution of 1798 and subsequent writings, to his final recommendation that states unhappy with federal

  • A Colonial Pamphlet Helps Show Why the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause Granted No Power0

    • July 11, 2012

    Learn more: Hear a podcast on this subject. As I have noted before (for example, here and here) pamphlets written in support of the colonial cause during the years 1763-1774 help us greatly in understanding the language of the Constitution. Unfortunately, most constitutional writers regularly overlook those pamphlets—one reason mistakes of constitutional interpretation are so

  • Montana Supreme Court’s “History” Turns Out To Be Weak0

    • July 8, 2012

    The Montana Supreme Court won praise for its recitation of history in its recent corporate finance case, Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General (later called American Tradition Partnership v. Bulloch). But that was before anyone bothered to check the court’s version of history. Earlier this year, five of the seven state justices held that Montana’s


Get the latest edition of the popular work, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant. You can buy it in either hard copy or Kindle form here.


Rob Natelson, Senior Fellow, Constitutional Jurisprudence
Email: rob.natelson1@gmail.com
Phone: 303-279-6536, ext 114