There is much being said and to be said about President Obama’s decision to send US military forces to do whatever it is they are doing in Libya. Some of this commentary is even noting that there is something in the Constitution about going to war, even citing Section 8 of Article 1 which vests in Congress the power . . . → Read More: Of Libyas Past, Present and Future — the Constitution and Making War
Opponents of Obamacare have welcomed Judge Roger Vinson’s decision that not only is the individual mandate unconstitutional, but that that renders the entire 2,000 plus page scheme unconstitutional. (The previous ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional by Judge Henry Hudson did not overturn the entire statute. UPDATE – in mostly upholding Judge Vinson’s decision, the Eleventh . . . → Read More: Obamacare in the Supreme Court
One of the distinctive features of the Tea Party is its focus on understanding the Constitution and pulling the federal leviathan back into its constitutional bounds. While conservatives certainly have always been cognizant of the Constitution, previous conservative resurgences were never as Constitution-conscious as the contemporary Tea Party. The question is, what do we do with . . . → Read More: The Problem of Pork and Precedent, or Why We Need Amendment as a Third Front to Restore Constitutional Government
There has been considerable brouhaha over whether the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in the 112th Congress will really reduce runaway federal spending. One day the leadership designates a chairman of the Appropriations Committee with a major earmark portfolio of his own and the next day there are fears that even Tea Party stalwarts might get wobbly . . . → Read More: Earmarks and Obamacare — Count on the Constitution, not Congress or the courts
Many Americans are frustrated by the continuing ability of an unelected, unaccountable, elitist body, the Supreme Court, to freely change the meaning of the Constitution. For over seven decades the Court has abetted a massive centralization of governmental power at the national level, contrary to any reasonable understanding of the original allocation of powers by the . . . → Read More: How Do We Restore the Constitution?
Frustration on both the political left and right have led to calls for a new constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution. However, such a convention would likely be dominated by politicians and law professors, who would be unlikely to propose amendments restoring the original Constitution, or remain within the limits as to subject matter which the States might include in their convention applications. . . . → Read More: Is an Article V Convention the Best Approach?
By amending Article V of the Constitution to eliminate the convention requirement for state-initiated amendment proposals and by slightly lowering the ratification hurdles, we can restore control over the Constitution to the people and end the current federal monopoly over the meaning of our foundational document. . . . → Read More: Restoring the Constitution through the “Amendment Amendment”
The proposed reform of Article V provides another route to bypass a recalcitrant Congress. This is a national referendum if two-thirds but not three fourths of the states have approved an amendment. . . . → Read More: But Won’t Congress Block Amendments Restoring Federalism?
Of course, the “amendment amendment” would have to be added to the Constitution under the existing Article V procedures. If Congress can not be trusted to pass constitutional amendments limiting its governmental power, why would two-thirds of both houses approve a constitutional amendment which will end Congress’ de facto monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments? Here a . . . → Read More: Can the “Amendment Amendment” be Enacted?, or a Progressive-Tea Party alliance, are you kidding?