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.”
The Judiciary Committee’s ex post facto approach to impeachment violates the Constitution
The committee’s decision . . . may be convenient for its purposes. But it violates both the rule of law and the American constitutional order.
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.
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.
Did Founder James Wilson oppose the Electoral College and favor ‘National Popular Vote?’
Although Wilson toyed with the idea of direct election, when all was said and done he preferred the presidential system featured in our Constitution.
Should we interpret the Constitution so the feds can oversee everything affecting more than one state?
As the framers did with so many other decisions, in allocating authority between states and federal government they balanced competing values.
More evidence that the Obamacare insurance mandate was unconstitutional
A leading Founder pointed out that authority to regulate commerce did not include power to compel it.
What the Constitution says about impeachment
When weighing whether to impeach a sitting president, we consider how other presidents have acted. It is regrettable but true that many Presidents have routinely played fast and loose with the truth, acted incompetently, and used their office to attack political opponents.
One reason public discourse is so vile: We’ve forgotten the 1st Amendment’s meaning
Judges have no special expertise in identifying or balancing social benefits and social losses. . . Their rules turned out to be flawed. One of their flaws is that they pushed down the standards for public discourse.
Why recent attacks on the Constitution are wrong
In fact . . . the claim that slaveholders adopted the Constitution is substantially false.
