Archives
- May, 2013 (9)
- April, 2013 (1)
- March, 2013 (7)
- February, 2013 (5)
- January, 2013 (5)
- December, 2012 (2)
- November, 2012 (3)
- October, 2012 (1)
- September, 2012 (1)
- August, 2012 (1)
- June, 2012 (4)
- April, 2012 (2)
- March, 2012 (6)
- February, 2012 (2)
- January, 2012 (1)
- December, 2011 (3)
- November, 2011 (1)
- October, 2011 (2)
- September, 2011 (2)
- August, 2011 (2)
- July, 2011 (3)
- June, 2011 (2)
- May, 2011 (1)
- March, 2011 (1)
- January, 2011 (2)
- December, 2010 (1)
- October, 2010 (1)
- September, 2010 (1)
- July, 2010 (2)
- June, 2010 (1)
- May, 2010 (3)
- April, 2010 (4)
- March, 2010 (2)
- February, 2010 (1)
- January, 2010 (1)
- October, 2009 (3)
- September, 2009 (2)
- August, 2009 (3)
- May, 2009 (4)
- January, 2009 (1)
- November, 2008 (1)
- July, 2008 (2)
- June, 2008 (2)
- March, 2008 (2)
- December, 2007 (1)
- September, 2007 (1)
- August, 2007 (2)
- April, 2007 (1)
For a group that claims to revere the Constitution, the Tea Party appears pretty determined to deal it a death by a thousand cuts. Its latest attack involves a nasty little piece of constitutional revisionism, complete with a "How can you be against that?" title: the "Balanced Budget Amendment." Putting aside the political questions about whether such a law is wise or practical, it also crashes headlong into the very constitutional principles the Tea Party purports to cherish.
University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone and I have both come to Huffington Post many times in recent years to talk about the U.S. Constitution, how to respond to attacks by tea partiers and other conservatives on our Nation's founding charter, and how the Constitution is a progressive document.
When I was growing up, my mom warned me each fall about Halloween candy with a hidden razor blade. As a parent, the thing I'll be most scared about this fall is the prospect of Tea Partiers coming to my child's school dressed up like James Madison to "teach" the U.S. Constitution.
In the first big campaign finance case since the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion last year in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court will hear arguments on Monday in McComish v. Bennett. McComish is a critical test for the Roberts Court. Will it tolerate, or will it kill off, Arizona's public financing law, put in place to control corporate and special interest influence over the electoral process?
Mr. Krauthammer's attempt to claim the Constitution as his own is an offensive, if standard, trope of conservatives. But the difference between constitutional progressives and constitutional conservatives is not about whether to follow the Constitution, but about what the Constitution requires and allows, particularly when it comes to the powers of the federal government.
With his model legislation, Pearce appears to be deliberately setting up a showdown between state and federal power in an area where the Constitution has decisively taken away power from the states. The Constitution vests the federal government with sole authority to resolve questions of naturalization, and the conditions of citizenship have been fixed in our federal charter since Reconstruction.
Adam Liptak's must-read, front-page story in this past Sunday's New York Times examines in significant and compelling detail the increasingly favorable disposition of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Robert towards corporate interests, highlighting a newly released empirical study by Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) that tracks the success of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce before the Court over most of the last 30 years.
With his model legislation, Pearce appears to be deliberately setting up a showdown between state and federal power in an area where the Constitution has decisively taken away power from the states. The Constitution vests the federal government with sole authority to resolve questions of naturalization, and the conditions of citizenship have been fixed in our federal charter since Reconstruction.
You probably have not heard much about the nomination of Scott Matheson Jr. by President Obama to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. There is a reason for that: Matheson’s nomination is utterly without controversy.
On July 6, 2010, Constitutional Accountability Center sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary in support of the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Read the text of the letter below or click on the link to see the letter in its entirety.
Pages