Prop. 122 gives Arizona voters the opportunity to push back against federal overreach in November. Opponents of this state sovereignty measure make it seem like if it was passed, it will be the death of the Republic as we know it, but is that really the case?Details
In November, Arizona voters will have an opportunity to approve a state constitutional amendment that will establish an important bulwark against unconstitutional or unwieldy federal actions.Details
This fall, Arizona voters have the chance to honor the spirit of James Madison by voting Yes on Proposition 122. If passed, the state constitutional amendment would make the feds enforce, enact and pay for its unconstitutional actions and programs on their own.Details
First, congratulations to co-blogger Mike Rappaport for having two of his articles cited multiple times in yesterday’s recess appointments decision, NLRB v. Noel Canning. Second, my quick takeaway is that the case is a win for originalism. True, the majority opinion (Breyer, writing for Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan) is an ugly bit of non-originalism. But…Details
OKLAHOMA CITY, June 11, 2014 – Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed a bill into law that declares gold and silver as legal tender within the state. Signed last week, Senate Bill 862 (SB862) was introduced by Sen. Clark Jolley and Rep. Gary Banz, with co-sponsorship from Sen. Natham Dahm. It reads, in part: Gold…Details
Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in Bond v. United States has been sharply criticized (see here and here), so I’ll say few words partially in its favor. The case has seemed odd from the beginning because the federal statute at issue implements the Chemical Weapons Convention and (as the majority says) the local misuse of household chemicals does not seem the type of activity that is likely to implicate an international treaty.Details
Michael Perry writes:
I share your originalist misgivings about the plurality and Thomas opinions in McCutcheon. However, a reader of your most recent post on the mattermight conclude that you have bought into the “expected applications” version of originalism, and I doubt you mean to do that! So, you might want to say something further about the version of originalism you are bringing to bear in expressing your misgivings about the McCutcheon opinions.
Trying to solve these questions by judicial reasoning rather than historical inquiry converts them from questions about what the framers wrote to questions about what the judge thinks is best.Details
Nullification, as an idea, is simple.
Legislation, as a process, is not.Details