The overwhelming majority of the framers had been given full authority to propose a new government. Charges that they did not are based on ignorance.
Defending the Constitution: The Framers did not violate their trust Read More »
Before criticizing the Founders, w]e must understand the choice they faced: (1) tolerating a vile institution that was (then) dying anyway or (2) consigning the American continent to perpetual warfare at a cost of millions of lives and incalculable misery.
Defending the Constitution: Why the Founders couldn’t abolish slavery Read More »
If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation.
Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism Read More »
Even today, despite all the state legislative cessions, the authority available to state lawmakers remains impressive.
The federal powers of state legislatures Read More »
Based on the Constitution’s text and history, Congress’s power to regulate its own elections should be narrowly construed.
The Founders warned us about abuses like H.R. 1 Read More »
H.R. 1 contains some sections that are perfectly constitutional . . . .But they are intertwined with provisions that are clearly (or arguably) unconstitutional. This intertwining would take decades of litigation to unravel.
H.R. 1 would create chaos only a constitutional amendment could fix Read More »
Frantic claims that it’s a “constitutional convention” … or that it can issue a new document or “radically re-write” the existing one … or change the ratification procedure—none of these have any legal or historical basis.
How a ‘Convention of States’ really works Read More »
Sometimes after examining the text it even remains unclear whether that text is unclear! What seems obvious on initial examination may be entirely wrong.
When Can an Originalist Scholar Begin with the Constitution’s Text? Read More »
Congress cannot disqualify Trump from serving as president again.
Can Trump be disqualified from the presidency? Read More »
The Constitution’s language creates an evidentiary presumption against late impeachment . . . but it might be rebutted.
Originalism: the constitutionality of impeaching ex-presidents Read More »
The doctored anti-Trump videos did not meet any reasonable standard of admissibility.
The impeachment videos: Raskin’s questionable tactics Read More »
In an impeachment trial, if the House managers claim that the accused’s alleged lies form a basis for conviction, then they have the burden of proving—by clear and convincing evidence—that the statements were, in fact, lies.
Prosecutors tried to make opinions impeachable Read More »
