Defending the Constitution: The founders’ words were not ‘meaningless’ or ‘vague’
The charge that the Constitution is “vague” is based on ignorance.
Defending the Constitution: limits on federal authority
A final reason for decentralization is much less widely understood: Political decentralization promotes human progress.
Defending the Constitution: The 2nd Amendment is not outdated
Obviously she was never taught the difference between ordinary legislation (such as traffic laws) and a general constitutional standard.
Why the District of Columbia should not be a state
In presidential contests D.C. voters do not seriously weigh the merits or demerits of presidential candidates. The District is a dependency of the federal government, and its electorate invariably votes for the party that offers more government
Defending the Constitution from the ‘living constitutionalists’
“In practice, “living constitutionalism” converts our Constitution into a parchment loin cloth to cover political pudenda.”
Defending the Constitution: The Framers did not violate their trust
The overwhelming majority of the framers had been given full authority to propose a new government. Charges that they did not are based on ignorance.
Defending the Constitution: Why state equality in the Senate makes sense
Social justice warriors also may be offended by my outlining another way the Senate improves decision making. Here it is . . .
Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism
If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation.
How states should push back against the Biden administration
States can refuse to cooperate with a federal program or enforce an unconstitutional federal law.
The Founders warned us about abuses like H.R. 1
Based on the Constitution’s text and history, Congress’s power to regulate its own elections should be narrowly construed.
H.R. 1 would create chaos only a constitutional amendment could fix
H.R. 1 contains some sections that are perfectly constitutional . . . .But they are intertwined with provisions that are clearly (or arguably) unconstitutional. This intertwining would take decades of litigation to unravel.
How a ‘Convention of States’ really works
Frantic claims that it’s a “constitutional convention” … or that it can issue a new document or “radically re-write” the existing one … or change the ratification procedure—none of these have any legal or historical basis.
