The book by political scientist Michael Dichio argues that the Court has done more to promote centralization than protect states, and is the most thorough analysis to date, of this longstanding issue..
The idea has some flaws, but would be a major improvement over the status quo. It also has much in common with a proposal for state-issued visas promoted by two Republican members of Congress in 2017.
The long shot presidential candidate wants booming cities to get rid of their restrictions on new development.
The MORE Act combines laudably broad legalization and expungement provisions with taxes and spending that may alienate potential Republican allies.
In this follow-up to my Washington Post article on the same subject, I consider whether current liberal support for federalism is purely opportunistic, and whether the political left is inherently pro-centralization.
Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Thomas Massie have introduced a bill that would cut federal airport spending while giving airports more freedom to raise their money.
The late Supreme Court justice was an inconsistent defender of civil liberties.
In recent years, many liberals have come to develop a new appreciation for constitutional limits on federal power. Whether the trend continues remains to be seen.
Should federal marijuana reform be tied to a broader "racial justice" agenda?
A solid majority of congressmen, including 41 Republicans, voted for a spending rider that bars the Justice Department from interfering with the legalization of cannabis for medical or recreational use.
Understanding today’s Supreme Court decision in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren
The decision is a complicated ruling that potentially sets a dangerous precedent for the scope of federal power under the Constitution.
The seventh post in the Volokh Conspiracy symposium on "Our American Story: The Search for a Shared National Narrative" (ed. by Joshua Claybourn).
The federal hate crime charges against John T. Earnest are redundant and constitutionally problematic.
My new book chapter is now available for free on SSRN. It desccribes how "voting with your feet" played a central role in American history, how foot voting is at the heart of much of the nation's success, and the recent rise of dangerous new obstacles to foot-voting. Part of a new book, "Our American Story: The Search for a National Narrative."
The ruling, written by a Republican-appointed judge, is an important victory for federalism.
The decision is likely to be unpopular. But it is the right thing to do nonetheless, as the law is unconstitutional. Not every evil must be addressed by a federal law.
But that might be news to some Californians, and even more of the state's elected and appointed officials.
My newly posted article explains how the administration's efforts have had the unintended effect of strengthening judicial protection for state autonomy.
"This isn't a partisan issue," the Utah senator says. "This is a constitutional issue."
Years after the state legalized medical marijuana, Maricopa County's top attorney served as a barrier.
The event features Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and myself.
William Barr does not like legalization but says Congress has to resolve the "untenable" conflict between state and federal law.
Respect federalism and leave the states alone.
My book chapter on this subject from the "Cambridge Handbook of Classical Liberal Thought" is now available on SSRN.
The judge was right to conclude that the individual health insurance mandate is now unconstitutional, but wrong to rule that the rest of the ACA is now unlawful because it can't be severed from the largely toothless mandate left in place under the 2017 GOP tax bill.
The federal case against the Charlottesville murderer illustrates how hate crime laws punish people for their bigoted beliefs.
The ruling is the latest in a long line of setbacks for the administration's efforts to punish sanctuary jurisdictions by withholding federal law enforcement grants.
But losing taught libertarians how to win
FGM is a horrible crime. But banning it is one of many issues the Constitution leaves to the states, much like banning rape and murder. Yesterday's court decision striking down the law was correct.
Policing such behavior, the court concludes, is a matter for the states, because it isn't authorized as a regulation of commerce or as necessary and proper to comply with treaties.
Democratic control of the House, the passage of marijuana legalization referenda in three states, and the removal of Jeff Sessions presage a brighter future for legalized pot.
The federal case against the Pittsburgh shooter is redundant and constitutionally questionable.
A post based on my presentation at a panel on mandatory national service organized by the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.
The decision is the latest in a long line of legal setbacks for the administration's efforts to force sanctuary cities to help deport undocumented immigrants.
Responses to my lead essay by legal scholars John Eastman and Gabriel Chin have now been posted, along with my rejoinders to them.
Legal scholar and National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen explains how many of the Constitution's safeguards against "mob rule" have frayed. His description of the problem is compelling, though he is less strong on possible solutions.
The lead essay on this month's Cato Unbound is my article outlining why the text and original meaning of the Constitution do not give the the federal government any general power to restrict immigration. There will be responses by critics, and ongoing discussion until October.
A White House policy committee is collecting information on "negative trends" and "threats" associated with legalization.
The Trump Administration is seeking to roll back federal automotive fuel economy standards and prevent California from maintaining more stringent standards of its own.
He deserves credit for being one of the very few national politicians to focus on this enormous problem. If enacted, his proposal would be a step in the right direction, though it is likely to have only a modest impact.
The ruling is notable in underscoring how the Supreme Court's sports-betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
Economist Bryan Caplan reminds us that political decentralization has little value unless it is accompanied by mobility.
Tenants are challenging a HUD rule that requires local public housing authorities across the country to prohibit people from smoking in their homes.
Cornell law professor Michael Dorf asks whether Clarence Thomas would vote to strike down federal laws restricting abortion, on federalism grounds. The answer might well be yes. But the issue would have to be presented to him in the right way.
The lawsuit contends that the Constitution requires a federal tax deduction for "all or a significant portion" of state income tax payments. It relies on badly flawed constitutional arguments to try to prop up a badly flawed policy.
The initiative could be reinstated for the 2020 election, however, if the Court concludes that its inclusion does not violate California law.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
