Judicial oligarchy is the wrong way to decide abortion policy
On abortion policy America has ceased to be a democracy and has become a judicial oligarchy.
The Supreme Court re-affirms Indian treaty originalism
Why do many judges and commentators abandon standard interpretative methods when addressing some parts of the Constitution? The answer is clear.
The Supreme Court just applied originalism to an Indian treaty, so why not to the Constitution?
This case illustrates how judges apply originalism for almost all legal documents — except the Constitution.
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”
New evidence on the constitutionality of paper money
I examined how the Constitution was represented to, and understood by, the ratifying public. And that resolved any doubt.
The founder who told Americans we have a right to military weapons
“THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY … Who are the militia? are they not ourselves[?].”
Time to end the “emoluments” lawsuits against Trump
Arms-length market transactions simply are not “emoluments” as the Constitution uses the word.
More news on the Constitution’s ratification: the meaning of “militia” in the Second Amendment
This passage leaves nothing to inference: Coxe states explicitly that the militia consists of every man from 16 to 60 years of age.
News on the Constitution’s ratification: More evidence the feds are exceeding their powers
The Constitution created a strictly limited central government, which . . . would have no authority over religion, most criminal offenses, civil justice, social services, education, or most aspects of transportation or the economy.
What would America look like with an originalist Supreme Court?
Originalism is the prevailing method of interpreting almost all legal documents. An originalist is simply a person who believes we should use the same principles to interpret the Constitution
Justice Thomas again shows he’s the Supreme Court’s only consistent originalist
Although Justice Thomas agreed that the protection against excessive fines applies to the states, he was the only member of the court to do so on plausible originalist grounds.
Why the “National Popular Vote” scheme is unconstitutional
NPV . . . with or without congressional approval . . . violates a central principle of constitutional law.