Supreme Court | Timely Renewed

Why Should Donald Trump, Bill de Blasio and I Get Extra Votes?

By admin, on July 10th, 2019%

The question about citizenship is needed on the 2020 Census so that we can apportion on the principle of “one person, one vote” as articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1960s. . . . → Read More: Why Should Donald Trump, Bill de Blasio and I Get Extra Votes?

The Missing Half of Originalism

By admin, on December 10th, 2017%

By framing the fundamental issue as judicial amendment vs. democratic amendment, originalists can make clear that they are defending democratic government, not the dead hand of history as portrayed so often by their opponents. However, unlike regular laws, which can be readily amended by current legislatures, the Constitution can only be democratically changed by the lugubrious procedures of Article V. Therefore, originalists need to actively advocate reform of Article V. . . . → Read More: The Missing Half of Originalism

Why the Electoral College is Not in Tom Perez’ Constitution

By admin, on December 10th, 2017%

The DNC chairman’s misstatement was not an inadvertent error. In fact, it reflected an attitude toward the Constitution which is common in the modern Left. . . . → Read More: Why the Electoral College is Not in Tom Perez’ Constitution

Six (Poorly Drafted) Amendments

By admin, on January 1st, 2015%

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book proposing six amendments to the Constitution. Whatever their substantive merits, these opinions are all very poorly drafted. They leave too much discretion in the hands of judges, and even can be reasonably read to defeat Stevens’ objectives in proposing them. . . . → Read More: Six (Poorly Drafted) Amendments

Refusal to Defend: The Abuse of Power Underlying the Gay Marriage Cases

By admin, on August 18th, 2013%

By ignoring US and California state officials’ refusal to defend DOMA and Prop 8, the Supreme Court abetted an egregious increase in executive branch power and attack on the rule of law. Now executive branch officials no longer have to constitutionally repeal laws of which they disapprove in the legislature, they only need to fail to defend them when they are challenged in court. . . . → Read More: Refusal to Defend: The Abuse of Power Underlying the Gay Marriage Cases

Let’s Not Give Up on the Constitution – Amendment Is a Better Solution

By admin, on January 8th, 2013%

Rather than justifying a free-for-all of constiutional disobedience as recently advocated by Professor Louis Seidman, we should use the amendment process to update the Constitution if needed. And if amendment is too difficult, let’s reform it to allow constitutional change to proceed in a democratic and orderly manner. . . . → Read More: Let’s Not Give Up on the Constitution – Amendment Is a Better Solution

The Gay Marriage Cases Are Not About Gay Marriage: The Issue Is Survival of Government by The People

By admin, on December 30th, 2012%

The gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court represent a classic example of judges twisting constitutional language to impose their personal policy views on the nation. There is no basis in any constitutional language for forcing gay marriage on the nation, regardless of its possible merits as social policy. If these merits are so persuasive that gay marriage belongs in the Constitution, the solution is not the anti-democratic process of forcing it on the nation through judicial dictate. The solution is the democratic process of amendment. If amendment is too difficult, let us preserve democratic rule by modest reforms of the amendment process such as the Amendment Amendment, not by continuing our current system of judicial imperialism. . . . → Read More: The Gay Marriage Cases Are Not About Gay Marriage: The Issue Is Survival of Government by The People

Are We The People? is now available – the answer to SCOTUSocracy

By admin, on July 4th, 2012%

The new short book Are We The People? shows how we can revive the amendment process so that major constitutional issues can be decided by the democratic method the Framers intended rather than by the fiat of an unelected and unaccountable judicidary. . . . → Read More: Are We The People? is now available – the answer to SCOTUSocracy

Professor Levinson and the “Imbecilic” Constitution: Speaking Liberty to Power

By admin, on June 11th, 2012%

Professor Sanford Levinson’s recent New York Times op-ed on our “imbecilic” Constitution gets only one thing right – the amendment process is moribund. Professor Richard Epstein’s brilliant response to Levinson gets only one thing wrong – limited government will not be restored voluntarily by regular politicians no matter well schooled they are by Professor Epstein. We need a tool to overcome 80 plus years of Supreme Court decisions underlying the federal leviathan. That tool is a reformed amendment process enabling constitutional amendments to be initiated and enacted at the state level without having to go through either Congress or the dangerous process of a second constitutional convention. . . . → Read More: Professor Levinson and the “Imbecilic” Constitution: Speaking Liberty to Power

Obamacare: Winning the Battle but Losing the War?

By admin, on April 2nd, 2012%

Even if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional, that will still leave in place all of the previous 75 years of Supreme Court decisions which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional limits. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court overturned many New Deal expansions of federal power, only to have them all reversed as Roosevelt appointees eventually filled the Court. A Supreme Court decision against Obamacare must not be a cause for complacency in the war against the ever-expanidng power of the national government, including enacting amendments to restore the original constitutional limits on federal power. . . . → Read More: Obamacare: Winning the Battle but Losing the War?

Timely Renewed