The 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.
Constitutional Studies
- Home
- Constitutional Studies
Latest Posts
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
READ MORENew 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
READ MOREA 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
READ MORE
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
READ MORESpeaking out against the Obamacare decision0
- July 1, 2012
Defects in the Supremes' holding that the Obamacare penalty is a "tax"0
- June 28, 2012
For a podcast covering this subject in more detail, click here. Under the Constitution’s original meaning, the Supreme Court’s holding that Obamacare’s penalty for not purchasing health insurance is a tax is defective in at least two respects. First: The court fails to understand the Constitution’s line of distinction between those exactions that qualify as
READ MORE
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.
Contact
Rob Natelson, Senior Fellow, Constitutional Jurisprudence
Email: rob.natelson1@gmail.com
Phone: 303-279-6536, ext 114