In the 20th century, the Supreme Court cited McCulloch to uphold unprecedented federal spending and regulatory programs. Law school constitutional law courses sometimes treat McCulloch the same way. . . . [But] this approach is the product of historical ignorance.
Why McCulloch v. Maryland—now 200 years old—is not a ‘big government’ manifesto Read More »
Today the constitutions of 26 states contain bans that go well beyond what Blaine wanted. Unlike Blaine’s proposal, those constitutions mandate discrimination against “sectarian” religion.
Supreme Court to review common anti-school choice rule in state constitutions Read More »
“Progressive” Supreme Court decisions that led directly or indirectly to the orgy of anonymous spending
How “progressive” court decisions promoted the rise of dark money Read More »
By the time ratification was complete, the Constitution’s implications for religion were understood: Religious faith was valuable for good government. But government was to treat individual religions equally, as long as they conducted themselves in an orderly manner.
A new Supreme Court case on establishment of religion Read More »
By clarifying constitutional amendment law, Stevens made it more accessible to citizens who now seek to use it to cure our dysfunctional federal government.
John Paul Stevens’ greatest legacy Read More »
Two of the Supreme Court’s most liberal members effectively told us they want no part of this campaign of historical destruction.
Two liberal Supreme Court justices slap down the Left’s historical desecration Read More »
The Supreme Court term just over certainly confirmed what I wrote shortly after it started: The constant refrain that the current bench is a “conservative Supreme Court” with a “conservative majority” is flat wrong.
The verdict is in: We do not have a “conservative Supreme Court” Read More »
On abortion policy America has ceased to be a democracy and has become a judicial oligarchy.
Judicial oligarchy is the wrong way to decide abortion policy Read More »
Recent historical research has thoroughly discredited Stevens’ position.
NPR and Justice Stevens are wrong about guns Read More »
This case illustrates how judges apply originalism for almost all legal documents — except the Constitution.
Some red flag laws ignore traditional safeguards.
Some ‘Red Flag’ laws Are unconstitutional—and could kill more people than they save Read More »
Originalism is the prevailing method of interpreting almost all legal documents. An originalist is simply a person who believes we should use the same principles to interpret the Constitution
What would America look like with an originalist Supreme Court? Read More »
