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

  • Debt deal shows once more that Congress can’t do the job0

    • August 1, 2011

    The latest debt deal illustrates Congress’s utter inability to deal with the mess it has gotten itself into. As more and more Americans realize this, pressure will build for an interstate “convention for proposing amendments” to solve the problem. (The Constitution authorizes the state legislatures to force an interstate convention for this purpose.) Here’s where

  • Can the President Raise the Debt Limit Unilaterally? Hell no!0

    • July 27, 2011

    Some people are claiming that if Congress fails to raise the debt limit, the President can raise it himself unilaterally.  The claim is not only wrong, but far scarier for America’s future than a default would be. Typical of those arguing this way is Bruce Bartlett, the formerly conservative economist who in recent years has

  • The Unintended Constitutional Mistakes of “Cut, Cap, and Balance”0

    • July 24, 2011

    When you write a constitutional amendment, the devil is in the details. “Cut, Cap, and Balance” prescribed some details for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). But those details were poorly thought-out, and might have given America a devil of a problem. Fortunately, Senate liberals—too short-term greedy to recognize their own long-term political interest—defeated Cut, Cap,

  • The greatly misunderstood Chief Justice John Marshall0

    • July 16, 2011

    One of the most enduring myths in American constitutional history is that Chief Justice John Marshall was a judicial activist whose decisions are good precedent for the modern federal monster state. Marshall was the fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (third, if you don’t count John Rutledge, a recess appointment who was never

  • Reining in Congress: An Enforceable Balanced Budget Amendment0

    • July 10, 2011

    There is growing sentiment that one or more constitutional amendments may be necessary to rein in the runaway Congress. The principal mechanism the Founders built into the Constitution for such contingencies is the procedure in Article V by which two thirds of the state legislatures force what the Constitution calls a “Convention for proposing Amendments.”  

  • The 1798 “Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen:” Yet another “progessive” irrelevancy0

    • July 3, 2011

    As Tom Woods points out on his blog, advocates of Obamacare have dug up a 1798 federal  statute that, they say, shows that the original understanding of the Constitution is broad enough to authorize federal health care programs.  The statute authorized creation of federal hospitals for sailors. After I entered a brief response to his


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