The undeniable irregularity that may have cost Trump the election
This election irregularity is the elephant in the room the media pretend not to see.
Defending the Constitution: The 2nd Amendment is not outdated
Obviously she was never taught the difference between ordinary legislation (such as traffic laws) and a general constitutional standard.
Defending the Constitution from the ‘living constitutionalists’
“In practice, “living constitutionalism” converts our Constitution into a parchment loin cloth to cover political pudenda.”
Defending the Constitution: The Framers did not violate their trust
The overwhelming majority of the framers had been given full authority to propose a new government. Charges that they did not are based on ignorance.
Defending the Constitution: Why the Founders couldn’t abolish slavery
Before criticizing the Founders, w]e must understand the choice they faced: (1) tolerating a vile institution that was (then) dying anyway or (2) consigning the American continent to perpetual warfare at a cost of millions of lives and incalculable misery.
Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism
If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation.
The federal powers of state legislatures
Even today, despite all the state legislative cessions, the authority available to state lawmakers remains impressive.
The Founders warned us about abuses like H.R. 1
Based on the Constitution’s text and history, Congress’s power to regulate its own elections should be narrowly construed.
H.R. 1 would create chaos only a constitutional amendment could fix
H.R. 1 contains some sections that are perfectly constitutional . . . .But they are intertwined with provisions that are clearly (or arguably) unconstitutional. This intertwining would take decades of litigation to unravel.
How a ‘Convention of States’ really works
Frantic claims that it’s a “constitutional convention” … or that it can issue a new document or “radically re-write” the existing one … or change the ratification procedure—none of these have any legal or historical basis.
When Can an Originalist Scholar Begin with the Constitution’s Text?
Sometimes after examining the text it even remains unclear whether that text is unclear! What seems obvious on initial examination may be entirely wrong.
Can Trump be disqualified from the presidency?
Congress cannot disqualify Trump from serving as president again.
