Justice Gorsuch’s Take on the Major Questions Doctrine
The Major Questions Doctrine is in the Constitution because it simply is the logical obverse of the Doctrine of Incidental Authority, which pervades the Constitution.
The Great John Marshall, Part 3
There has been a effort in the law schools—and at times in the Supreme Court—to appropriate Marshall as a model for liberal activism.
Alexander Hamilton, Richard Hooker, and the Necessary and Proper Clause
Alexander Hamilton may have borrowed part of his Necessary and Proper Clause analysis from a famous English theologian.
The “Nondelegation” Doctrine and the Necessary and Proper Clause
The scope of permissible delegation must be determined from the text of each power and the surrounding context. But there is no need to insert the Necessary and Proper Clause into the equation, except as a useful reminder.
Scholar Finds that Congress’s Power over Amendments Conventions is Strictly Limited
Dr. Wieciech is to be commended for examining an important constitutional issue and arriving at generally well-based conclusions.
Will the Supreme Court stretch the Commerce Clause even more?
Some claim that when the word “Commerce” is applied to Native Americans, it magically balloons in scope, allowing Congress to regulate just about anything.
Mr. President, Do the right thing: End the unconstitutional vaccination mandate
There is no Supreme Court authority higher than [Chief Justice] Marshall, and he himself told us that “health laws of every description” are matters for determination by the states.
Defending the Constitution: The founders’ words were not ‘meaningless’ or ‘vague’
The charge that the Constitution is “vague” is based on ignorance.
New evidence on the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause
“. . . .the powers of this Congress are confined to what is expressly delegated to them”
First decision of the Supreme Court Term: a unanimous liberal result
The statute is based on an overly-expansive definition of congressional power . . . But no member of the court wrote a concurring opinion to point that out . . .
What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership?
The “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the […]
The Impending Convention for Proposing Amendments — Part IV
Note: This series of six articles originally appeared in the Washington Post’s “Volokh Conspiracy,” a leading constitutional law website. Parts I, II, and III appear below this post, and Parts V and VI will be posted in the near future. How the judiciary’s decisions shed light on the federal amendments convention Although there has not […]
