Video: Rob Natelson and Jon Caldara discuss “Nat’l Popular Vote” & protecting the Electoral College’s integrity
Rob explains why II submitted a Supreme Court brief to protect presidential elector discretion and why the National Popular Vote Compact is a terrible idea
Underselling Originalism
Originalism is not a modern invention “[T]he ‘intent of the makers’ had been the lodestar of documentary construction since at least the 1500s.”
Global warming and the Constitution’s amendment process: How to tell whether a ‘consensus’ Is true
How academics formed a completely erroneous “consensus” about the convention procedure of Article V.
Two new briefs in the Supreme Court’s Electoral College case
[The integrity of presidential electors] has taken on great urgency as “progressive” state legislatures increasingly meddle with free elections.
New article: 18th century law shows impeachment requires a crime
Examples of high misdemeanors . . . were bribery, assault, and attempted murder.
The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware
The incentives behind the campaign are obvious. The ERA is poorly drafted and vague (which is why it was rejected). If it became part of the Constitution, the result would be legal chaos. Activists know they would be able to feed off that chaos . . . .
The Mayflower Compact and “consent of the governed” are now 400 years old
Self-government is at the heart of the American experiment. Historically, it is far more important than some other institutions (such as slavery) that [receive] more attention . . . . .
How much power may Congress delegate to federal agencies?
[T]he search for a single “non-delegation” principle applicable to all congressional powers is a futile one. Instead, the scope of permissible delegation of any particular congressional power must be sought in the meaning of the words describing that power.
Will the Supreme Court strike down bigoted state constitutional rules?
[T]he history of anti-sectarian clauses shows that “sectarian” is not a synonym for “religious” and anti-sectarian clauses were not designed merely to discriminate against religion. Instead, they were designed to discriminate in favor of some religions and against others.
What the “expert” panel should have told you about impeachment—but didn’t
Impeachment law is not for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. . . .
Under the Constitution the President, not unelected bureaucrats, makes foreign policy
These witnesses and their congressional sponsors apparently believe the consensus of professionals should control foreign policy. . . . But the Constitution squarely repudiates this “foreign policy by committee” approach.
The Constitution tells us impeachment is valid even though the Speaker has not transmitted it
Nothing in the Constitution gives [the Speaker of the House a presidential-style veto.
