Understanding the Constitution: Why Biden is wrong to think the 9th Amendment protects abortion
- March 10, 2022
“Progressive” Supreme Court decisions that led directly or indirectly to the orgy of anonymous spending
READ MOREBut Citizens United included a second decision, one rarely mentioned. In this part of the case, the court upheld federal laws requiring contributors to political ads to publicly reveal their names. Unlike the first ruling, the second was a constitutional mistake. Although the court has since reaffirmed its position, it should promptly reconsider.
READ MOREThis article was first published at the American Thinker website. Many commentators and politicians have attacked the Supreme Court’s 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for holding that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they organize under state corporation law. The Vermont state legislature has even adopted an application
READ MOREThe Supreme Court’s latest campaign finance decision, McCutcheon v. FEC, has sent up the predictable howls. In McCutcheon, the Court struck down, as violating the First Amendment, certain incumbent-protection rules that Members of Congress had rigged for their own election campaigns. But no one—including the Court—has yet convincingly addressed a question even more fundamental than
READ MOREIn a recent posting, I wrote: [I]t is dubious whether the Constitution even gives Congress power to regulate the source and amount of campaign contributions and expenditures. The background and meaning of the Constitution’s “Time, Places and Manner Clause”—which Congress uses to justify such laws—strongly suggests not. The Time, Places and Manner Clause is Article
READ MORE