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.
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.
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.
Most of the attention on the twenty state lawsuit against Obamacare understandably focuses on the "severability" issue, which could lead to the demise of the entire Affordable Care Act. But the individual mandate part could also set an important precedent.
A plan to divide California into three states will be on the state's referendum ballot in November. If it passes and is approved by Congress, it could potentially be a significant change for the better.