If we are not to lose our freedom entirely, we shall have to find a way to restore the Commerce Clause to something like its original scope.
Understanding the Constitution: The Truth about the Much-Abused Commerce Clause Read More »
This latest survey—like all the previous ones—confirms that when the Constitution uses the word “Commerce,” it does so to mean only mercantile trade and its incidents.
The Meaning of “Regulate Commerce” to the Constitution’s Ratifiers: An Update Read More »
The Commerce Clause part of the decision is a mess. There is no more polite way to describe it.
The Supreme Court’s Confused Decision in Haaland v. Brackeen Read More »
Congress’ effort to regulate Indian child placement is unconstitutional.
New Video on the Limits of Congress’s Commerce Clause Power Read More »
When the framers and ratifiers used the phrase “regulate Commerce” they meant “regulate trade.” Both “regulate commerce” and “regulate trade” meant to administer the body of jurisprudence known as the law merchant.
New Study Finds Administrative State Unconstitutional Read More »
During the Founding era, the phrase “regulate Commerce” had a very specific meaning
The real Commerce Clause—as the Founders knew it Read More »
Some claim that when the word “Commerce” is applied to Native Americans, it magically balloons in scope, allowing Congress to regulate just about anything.
Will the Supreme Court stretch the Commerce Clause even more? Read More »
We discovered that Ablavsky’s work contained a disturbing number of inaccurate, non-existent, and misleading citations, as well as deceptively-edited quotations.
A Further Response to Prof. Ablavsky on the Indian Commerce Clause Read More »
An advocate of vast congressional power takes quotes out of context, misrepresents what others say, and makes historical errors
A Preliminary Response to Prof. Ablavsky’s “Indian Commerce Clause” Attack Read More »
The Constitution does not give Congress authority to regulate the adoption of children.
Indian Child Welfare Act: Another case of Congress’s overreach goes to the Supreme Court Read More »
There is no Supreme Court authority higher than [Chief Justice] Marshall, and he himself told us that “health laws of every description” are matters for determination by the states.
Mr. President, Do the right thing: End the unconstitutional vaccination mandate Read More »
[S]etting minimum consumption ages is not a power the Constitution grants the federal government. The Constitution reserves it to the states.
Where were all the Constitution’s defenders when the feds raised the smoking age? Read More »
