In this episode of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I explain a legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine that puts a Supreme Court stamp of approval on James Madison’s blueprint to stop federal overreach through state non-cooperation.Details
Because the federal government – including the federal courts – is a creature of the people of the states, its opinion can never be the final word on what is constitutional or not.Details
The Supreme Court is at it again. This time, they have the opportunity to strike a major blow to Obamacare in King vs. Burwell. However, members of the court are seemingly more interested in the policy ramifications of their decision than protecting the Constitution.Details
That’s what Yale Law School professor and The New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse accused members of the Supreme Court of being after they agreed to hear the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. For his part, Princeton professor and fellow NYT columnist Paul Krugman called this a “cruel absurdity,” and suggested the court would “pervert the law to serve political masters.”Details
Last week, in a surprisingly clear opinion, the Supreme Court limited federal power and took the side of the Constitution over an agency’s regulatory program.Details
With the recent decision by the Supreme Court not to even hear the case against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, I have to ask a familiar question to the majority of people who still value the Constitution: are you ready to take the responsibility to defend our governmental charter?
We have the power; we need to get our local leaders to stop the wholesale selling out of our rights.Details