Under the Constitution, Regulating Marijuana is Mostly a State Concern

Under the Constitution, Regulating Marijuana is Mostly a State Concern

A growing number of states are defying the federal marijuana ban, not only by easing their own laws, but by actively cooperating with marijuana growing, processing, and use. Many contend that pot should be a state, rather than a federal, concern. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the court held that under the Constitution, Congress may use its Commerce Power to ban even “window box” medical marijuana, whether permitted under state law or not….

Read More Read More

List of Conventions of States and Colonies in American History

List of Conventions of States and Colonies in American History

Introduction Conventions of states, and before Independence of colonies have met frequently over the past three centuries. A “Convention for proposing Amendments” held under the Constitution is a gathering of this type. The following list itemizes all known conventions of states or colonies. To qualify as a convention of states (or colonies), the gathering must be a temporary meeting of legislatively-authorized representatives of at least three states or colonies, convening pursuant to instructions to consult about and/or negotiate solutions to…

Read More Read More

Why federal campaign finance disclosure laws are unconstitutional

Why federal campaign finance disclosure laws are unconstitutional

This article originally appeared in The Hill. Many on the left are campaigning to “overturn Citizens United.” By this they mean they want to reverse the portion of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which the Supreme Court upended a federal ban on corporations participating in candidate elections independently of the candidates’ campaigns. The effect of the court’s ruling is to allow citizens to utilize the corporate form when participating in politics. By an accurate reading of the Constitution, the ruling was correct—not merely because…

Read More Read More

Part II: What Do We Do About Legal Realism and Its Promotion of Judicial Activism?

Part II: What Do We Do About Legal Realism and Its Promotion of Judicial Activism?

In the previous installment in this two-part series, I surveyed how the theory of “legal realism” came to displace the traditional views of law shared by Anglo-American attorneys and judges. I explained that the Constitution’s provisions for the judiciary were drafted with the traditional views in mind—but once “legal realism” began to dominate legal thinking, the judicial system no longer worked as expected. Legal realist thought encouraged judges to engage in activist behavior not anticipated by the Constitution. How, therefore,…

Read More Read More

Part I: Judicial activism: Here’s a core reason for it you’ve never heard about

Part I: Judicial activism: Here’s a core reason for it you’ve never heard about

Whenever a court issues a highly publicized liberal activist decision, constitutionalists understandably become upset. They cast around for ways to stop this kind of overreaching. But if you want to devise a viable solution to misconduct, you have to understand the reasons for the misconduct. And constitutionalists almost invariably overlook one of the core reasons. This post discusses that reason. Next week we shall address possible solutions. Federal judges and state supreme court justices are largely drawn from a group…

Read More Read More