The U.S. Needs New Nukes? Really?
Trump adds "tactical" weapons to America's arsenal.
Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Hewitt delivers the L.P.'s prebuttal to tonight's SOTU, while the L.A. Times asks whether Hewitt can "make a fringe party mainstream."
"Why is he talking over the black woman our party chose to speak for us?"
The president has devoted himself to a pointless, self-defeating project.
The way the travel ban policy has been implemented both before and after the Supreme Court's decision further underscores the magnitude of the Justices' mistake.
The former Starbucks CEO is getting dragged by liberals and progressives because he is talking about debt and spending in ways they don't like.
The op ed explains why this option is not legal - and why it would set a dangerous precedent if the president succeeded in doing it.
The former president radically flipped the conventional wisdom about dealing with political enemies, legal issues, and impeachment.
The shutdown may force the government to cancel the State of the Union.
The criminal justice system failed four black men after a white woman accused them of rape.
They correctly warn it would set a dangerous precedent that could be abused by future presidents, including liberal Democrats.
Republicans embrace presidential authoritarianism, continuing a foul bipartisan tradition of legislating immigration through the executive branch.
The op ed was published yesterday in the New York Daily News, but may be even more relevant today.
She's the highest-profile candidate to jump in.
A case to watch for both criminal justice reformers and for critics of executive overreach.
The administration usurps Congress by redefining machine guns.
A presidential derangement syndrome for all seasons
He has manufactured a fake border crisis to justify an illicit power grab.
At least one Republican congressman agrees.
From the moment he started his improbable run for higher office, Donald Trump has stripped bare all pretensions that politics is about more than "winning."
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers-up to a point.
SCOTUS weighs congressional power, criminal law, and the non-delegation doctrine in Gundy v. U.S.
No great surprises so far. But some notable points nonetheless.
The Post has a symposium in which a a variety of legal commentators (myself included) discuss what they consider to be Judge Kavanaugh's most important opinions.
In 1999, Judge Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court case that forced Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes may have been wrongly decided. But it's not entirely clear what he now thinks about the issue.
The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's views on executive power actually encompasses four separate issues. On some of them his views bode well for the future, on others not so much.
Steve and Dwight Hammond became a cause célèbre for angry ranchers and another example of inflexible mandatory minimum sentences.
Like Neil Gorsuch, the D.C. Circuit judge has criticized Chevron deference for encouraging executive arrogance.
The story of how classical liberal Justice George Sutherland enabled executive overreach abroad.
The op ed outlines some of the grave flaws in today's Supreme Court ruling.
Some preliminary comments on a badly flawed ruling.
Can the president of the United States be sued for damages in a civil proceeding?
Bilal Abdul Kareem has been nearly droned in Syria five times already. A federal judge agrees his lawsuit over the matter can proceed.
The president has discovered the power of the pardon. Could that make this a moment for criminal justice reform?
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on state officials' apparent hostility to the bakers' religious beliefs. There is far stronger evidence of such hostility in the travel ban case.
After oral arguments last year, Stephanie Slade correctly observed that "justices might have found a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card." Also on the Reason Podcast: Bill Clinton, Roseanne, Samantha Bee, Kim Kardashian, and maybe the worst celebrity of the week, Larry Kudlow.
Despite the administration's claims to the contrary, it appears that no such thing exists. Its absence strengthens the constitutional case against the travel ban.
I am reposting my 2016 post on this subject, on the occasion of Kevin Walsh's guest-blogging stint addressing the same issue.
If your "signature achievements" are done by executive power alone, they might as well be written in pencil.
The Donald is more like The Gipper on trade policy than you think. And not in a good way.
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
The justices' comments in the oral argument suggest this will be a close case that could easily go either way. The outcome could well turn on the views of that perennial swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
On the eve of the of Supreme Court oral argument in the travel ban case, here are links to some of my more notable VC posts on the subject.
The unauthorized attack on Syria shows Congress won't enforce limits on the president's military powers.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.
"I don't know Mr. Libby, but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly."
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks