Major Problems in Montana's CI-128 (the Abortion Initiative)
- September 26, 2024
Judges have no special expertise in identifying or balancing social benefits and social losses. . . Their rules turned out to be flawed. One of their flaws is that they pushed down the standards for public discourse.
READ MORE“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 on the American Thinker website. Some on the left now argue that only individuals—not businesses or business associations such as corporations—should enjoy First Amendment rights. To be sure, their argument contradicts decisions made, not just by the current centrist Supreme Court, but also by “progressive” Supreme Court majorities throughout the
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 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