Rob Natelson’s Comment on Jon Caldara and the Denver Post
Newsflash for woke “journalists:” Conservatives and libertarians, like others, are entitled speak in their own voices. Not in yours or anyone else’s.
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.
Where were all the Constitution’s defenders when the feds raised the smoking age?
[S]etting minimum consumption ages is not a power the Constitution grants the federal government. The Constitution reserves it to the states.
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.
Lies law professors tell
[A] whole generation of law students has been trained to think that the 19th century courts were heartless tools of malicious capitalists, and that enlightened reform came only with the virtuous 20th century “progressives.”
Real originalism (not the cartoon version some love to attack) explained
Originalism has been the prevailing method of documentary interpretation in English and American law for at least five centuries.
New information on the Constitution’s ratification—Part IV North Carolina
North Carolinians repeatedly—both in official and unofficial documents—referred to an Article V convention as a “convention of the states.”
Why McCulloch v. Maryland—now 200 years old—is not a ‘big government’ manifesto
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court cited McCulloch to uphold unprecedented federal spending and regulatory programs. Law school constitutional law courses sometimes treat McCulloch the same way. . . . [But] this approach is the product of historical ignorance.
Impeachment inquiry rules skewed heavily against the President
Unfortunately, the new House rules fall far short of even minimal due process standards.
Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is unconstitutional—and why you shouldn’t believe law professors’ claims to the contrary
The fact that many of America’s law schools are one-sided political hothouses further encourages leftist passion at the expense of curiosity and care.
