New Article: Is President Trump in Violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause?

New Article: Is President Trump in Violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause?

Recent controversy has centered on President Trump’s businesses accepting payments—such as payment for space in the Trump Tower—from foreign governments. Several prominent legal commentators have begun a lawsuit claiming that the president is violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause by accepting “emoluments” from foreign governments. That Clause, which is Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, provides as follows: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under…

Read More Read More

A New Look at the Founders Through the Postal Clause

A New Look at the Founders Through the Postal Clause

The Constitution’s Postal Clause grants Congress power to “establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” There is a fascinating history behind that provision, which I explore in a new article linked here. Some of the highlights: * Although the Founders generally favored free enterprise over state-owned business, they made an exception for postal services. * As understood at the time, a postal system included not only letter and parcel delivery, but freight delivery, official dispatches, and transportation over a system of…

Read More Read More

Conservatives Should Abandon the Filibuster

Conservatives Should Abandon the Filibuster

Conservatives traditionally have supported the Senate filibuster because, supposedly, it puts the brakes on expansion of government. I’ve long thought conservatives should reconsider. With Democrats planning to filibuster President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, a good time to reconsider is now. That’s because history shows that, on balance, the filibuster doesn’t put the brakes on big government. It protects big government. The Senate’s filibuster system lets a minority of Senators block legislative action by making long speeches (i.e., “filibustering”) on…

Read More Read More

The 1889 St. Louis Convention of States

The 1889 St. Louis Convention of States

A frequent argument against a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is that there are “no precedents” for determining the rules and procedures for such a gathering, other than the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Although opponents persist in this claim, it has long been debunked: The Constitutional Convention was far from the only meeting of its kind. On the contrary, inter-colonial conventions met over 20 times before Independence, and conventions of states met eleven times between Independence and the Constitution’s ratification….

Read More Read More