May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
This case reflected an irony common these days: The majority the media calls “conservative” applying liberal precedent while the three most liberal justices argued against it!
READ MOREJudges 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 MOREBy the time ratification was complete, the Constitution’s implications for religion were understood: Religious faith was valuable for good government. But government was to treat individual religions equally, as long as they conducted themselves in an orderly manner.
READ MORETwo of the Supreme Court’s most liberal members effectively told us they want no part of this campaign of historical destruction.
READ MOREThe Colorado Constitution’s ban on aid to “sectarian” institutions flatly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
READ MORERob’s new research demonstrates that bans on “sectarian” aid were . . . designed to require state officials to discriminate in favor of mainstream Protestantism and against any faiths they deemed “bigoted” or “extreme.”
READ MORE