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
Today SpaceX, one of the private companies trying to get into the space launch business, had its first successfull suborbital test flight. The flight was part of its competition for a $1.6B contract from NASA for 12 flights to the international space station. While I recognize that strict economic libertarians and constitutional originalists question . . . → Read More: To Space and Beyond — a Tale of Public vs. Private Economies
Just as the Left tried unsuccessfully to tar the Tea Party as racist, it is now using distortion and ridicule to attack the Tea Party’s contention that Congress should follow the Constitution. One of the most recent efforts is radical activist Lincoln Caplan’s op-ed in the “All the News That Fits” Times, entitled “Exploring the . . . → Read More: The Real Constitutional Conservatism
Many thanks to the Washington Times for publishing my op-ed commentary presenting a preliminary argument for the “amendment amendment.” In particular they came up with a headline more informative and to the point than the one I proposed, although I would still like to use Carpe Apertio (seize the opening) as a slogan for something!
A fuller discussion of the “amendment . . . → Read More: Carpe Apertio: Return the Constitution to the People – Kill the Constitutional Convention Requirement
In an October 20 piece in Time, attorney Adam Cohen discusses the contention by senatorial candidates John Raese of West Virginia and Joe Miller of Alaska that the federal minimum wage law is unconstitutional. Although it does not appear that either candidate will be joining the Senate, it is important to clarify the confusion manifested by Mr. . . . → Read More: Of Minimum Wages, Lochner and Darby; or Understanding How to Read the Constitution Originally
There has been a flurry of notice in the media about an exchange in a recent debate between Delaware senatorial candidates Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons over the concept of the “separation of church and state” and the actual wording of the first amendment which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of . . . → Read More: Christine O’Donnell and the Separation of Church and State
This is the expanded text of a letter to the editor of the New York Times which I wrote in response to an op-ed by historical writer Ron Chernow. Of course, the “All the News That Fits” Times did not publish the letter.
In his op-ed article published September 23 entitled “The Founding Fathers versus the Tea Party”, . . . → Read More: Reply to Ron Chernow on the Founders vs. the Tea Party
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”