Heritage Foundation Paper Supports a “Convention of the States”
As for recent developments decreasing the “risk” of a runaway convention: That risk never existed.
Part #4: What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It
Getting the feds out is probably the single most important step toward curing our universities.
Federal Power Outside the Constitution?
When the court believes that even its modern version of the Constitution doesn’t support a federal exercise of power, it nevertheless may uphold that exercise under the doctrine of inherent sovereign authority.
Some Reasons Why Lawsuits to Disqualify Trump Will Fail
No responsible court should hear such a case, and no responsible lawyer should bring it.
Constitution’s Impeachment Rules Require Biden Inquiry to Be Narrowly Focused
Constitutional writers have long understood the meaning of the terms “Treason,” “Bribery,” and high Crimes.” But the phrase “high Misdemeanors” was a subject of controversy.
The Highly Political and Misunderstood Case of Moore v. Harper
Chief Justice Roberts’s language may create confusion the next time a state has a contested presidential election.
Your Guide to This Year’s Constitutional Cases From SCOTUS, Part II
The current bench challenges administrative overreach, but not overreach by Congress.
Your Guide to This Year’s Constitutional Cases From SCOTUS — Part I
The Supreme Court issued both liberal and constitutionalist decisions.
The “Christian Web Designer Case” Could Have Been Much Easier
If it had been treated properly as a “freedom of the press” case, then whether designing was for business or personal purposes would have been irrelevant.
Tyler v. Hennepin County: Why This Seemingly Innocent Decision is Disquieting
This case undermined state control over its own property law and probably gave the property owner an undeserved benefit.
The Supreme Court’s Confused Decision in Haaland v. Brackeen
The Commerce Clause part of the decision is a mess. There is no more polite way to describe it.
Justice Thomas’s Latest Dissent: The Constitution and Federal Spending
Justice Clarence Thomas frequently uses concurring and dissenting opinions to explain the Constitution’s fundamental principles.
