Today when you hear the term Constitutional Scholar or Constitutional Expert you get the image of someone who has studied the Constitution and perhaps the Ratification Debates as well as the federalist papers. Someone who has studied the philosophers whose opinions were crucial to how our nation was to be governed like Blackstone, Cicero and…Details
Dr. Robert Lowry Clinton has a fantastic article in the National Review this week. (h/t Mike Rogers) Here’s an excerpt: Many Americans are puzzled and angry about the judicial assault on religion, morality, and common sense that has been going on for the past few decades. People wonder, for example, how the First Amendment (which…Details
Jon Roland of Constitution.org had this to say about the lawsuits that AGs are filing on the health care bill There are a few minor things that might be won through litigation, if it were properly pleaded, but the suit filed is incompetent, little more than political posturing. The courts are not going to oppose…Details
Andrew Napolitano hits the nail on the head – as usual.
Writes Lew Rockwell: The Anti-Federalists predicted that a “Supreme” Court would help pave the way towards tyranny. Now the Nine Creeps have agreed with the Dictator that if he or any of his army of highly paid dependents declares a person to be a suspected enemy combatant (i.e., an enemy of the people), anything can…Details
Tenthers are constantly reminded by worshipers of the Judicial Supremacists on the highest Court that we’re re-arguing areas that were settled long ago by those black-robed deities. Yet Tenthers reject the notion that the federal Court can rewrite the Constitution for the entire nation if 5 politically connected lawyers agree. Besides the fact that this…Details
As the Tenth Amendment becomes the platform to stop an over reaching federal government, do we trust the Supreme Court to be a fair arbiter?
The Supreme Court, according to many constitutionalists, has been delinquent in its responsibility to protect the intention of the U.S. Constitution. Many past Supreme Court decisions have become bad precedent, and that bad precedent continues to be the bases for big government advocates to site as a justification for a continued trampling of state, and individual rights.
People that believe the constitution is a “living document” historically have utilized the commerce clause to feed their insatiable quest to trample individual and state’s rights. The constitutional clause under section 8 of the powers delegated to Congress simply states; “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
The intention was not to be a conduit to suppress the rights and freedoms of the fifty states and their citizens. But that is exactly how the federal government gets its tentacles into places it has no right to be. If there was an intention to regulate internal state activity the word “among” would have been “within” the several states.Details
Famed legal theorist Randy Barnett has been writing a flurry of blog posts lately over at The Volokh Conspiracy regarding what is “constitutional” – and, of course, what is not, too. The focus of late has been a debate at Politico.com regarding the Constitution and national health care. Barnett first takes the position that when viewing the Constitution…Details
I haven’t been too friendly to some of the solutions that Randy Barnett has offered for the problems we face, but – in regards to an original understanding of the purpose and intention of the Constitution, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone better. His recent blog post over at Volokh, regarding his rebuttal at Politico.com…Details