Mississippi 26 and Public Opinion on Abortion
Pro-life advocates pushing for a controversial definition are doing harm to their own cause.
On the Newsstand:Constitutional Law
On the Broccoli Objection
Those who believe the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional have relied frequently on slippery-slope arguments. Many have been convinced by what Andrew Koppelman calls the Broccoli Objection—the idea that, if Congress can penalize individuals for failing to purchase health insurance, it must have the power to penalize them for failing to eat their broccoli. (Talk about a Nanny State!) There ... Read More
Weighing In: The Slippery Originalist
Apparently, by raising questions which are always raised against originalists and asking for an originalist’s reply, I am guilty of pedantry and disparaging the debate about the Constitution. Who knew? Other than those digs, Samuel Coffin has a thoughtful reply to my last post. He argues that I engaged in “bad originalism” in order to make originalism look bad. Of ... Read More
Weighing In: Updating the Constitution
I suspected that Wyatt Troia’s editorial piece in The Crimson would drive some political discussion at Harvard. After reading Sam Barr’s response, I think it is telling that Sam essentially cedes Wyatt his point that much of the liberal agenda does not have a Constitutional basis. However, by raising a number of pedantic issues that supposedly highlight infidelity with the Constitution, I ... Read More
Updating the Constitution
Wyatt Troia has a column in the Crimson arguing that the Constitution, as it stands, does not permit many “liberal schemes” (including the health insurance mandate) and that, if liberals want to make their schemes constitutional, they need to pass constitutional amendments. Wyatt correctly notes that the enumerated Congressional powers in Article 1, Section 8, do not include workplace diversity ... Read More
Beck and Napolitano Conveniently Overlook the Sixteenth Amendment
I realize it might be perilous to take seriously the extreme constitutional vision put forward on Glenn Beck’s program, but I’m watching his special on the Constitution, and one little thing jumped out me. Beck wanted to know, from his guest Andrew Napolitano, what we could do to reverse Barack Obama’s incursions on the true Constitution. How can we return ... Read More
George Will Comes Out as a Judicial Liberal
George Will apparently wants the Supreme Court to overturn the individual mandate—the requirement that Americans purchase health insurance. As Jonathan Chait points out, Will is faced with the unenviable task of reconciling belief in judicial minimalism, which he and other conservatives have spent decades extolling, with the impulse to take advantage of their narrow Supreme Court majority. Will’s solution is ... Read More
Justice Scalia and Arbitrary Originalism
It was aggravating enough when Justice Breyer, appearing on Good Morning America two weeks ago, made comments that many took to mean that Koran burning is equivalent to “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” After all, the Supreme Court doesn’t officially convene until Monday, but the scandals have already begun. Only a few days later, Justice Antonin Scalia had to ... Read More
Joel Pollak Bravely Confronts Tyranny
Recent Harvard Law graduate Joel Pollak, running for Congress against Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), has invoked Steve Biko, the martyred South African anti-apartheid activist, in defense of Andrew Breitbart, the amoral media commentator who recently went after an innocent civil servant in order to advance his race-baiting political agenda. According to Pollak, Breitbart embodies Biko’s “simple credo”: “I write what I ... Read More
The DISCLOSE Act and NRA Exemption
Politico reports that House Democrats have agreed to a compromise with the National Rifle Association that may enable passage of a modest campaign-finance bill, the DISCLOSE Act. The bill would require groups to disclose their top donors if they want to run ads or send out mailers during election season. Why wouldn’t the NRA oppose that? Well, because they’d be ... Read More
The New Miranda Decision and Souter’s Harvard Speech
With the predictable 5-4 lineup, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that, in order to exclude from evidence incriminating statements to the police, criminal suspects must have unambiguously invoked their right to remain silent. The case essentially asked, what constitutes a waiver of one’s Miranda rights? Does sitting silent, unresponsive, for nearly three hours, as did the suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, ... Read More
Judging Kagan, Judging Us
I like to think of David Brooks as The New York Times’ “Chronicler of the Powerful and Rich.” He’s gotten some pretty extravagant (and hilarious) criticism for his work as the Chronicler of the P&R — work which should basically be read as a twice-weekly “What Should I Think?” guide for Upper East Side Manhattanites — but for the most part, honestly, ... Read More
The Folly of Perry v. Schwarzenegger
In my latest Harvard Independent column, I argue that the legal challenge to Proposition 8 in a California federal court may end up backfiring if it reaches the Supreme Court, because there almost certainly are not five votes for judicially-imposed gay marriage on the current court. Furthermore, I said, an anti-marriage equality ruling would suck the air out of the ... Read More
E Pluribus Pluribus
Public discourse in the age of the Internet Republic.com 2.0 by Cass Sunstein Princeton University Press, September 2009, $24.95, 272 pp. Create Your Own Economy by Tyler Cowen Dutton Adult, July 2009, $25.95, 272 pp. Cass Sunstein begins Republic.com 2.0 by asking his readers to imagine a world where their control over the media they consume is total.”It is some ... Read More
