The Constitution
A Transformative Reflection
On the Newsstand:The Constitution
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
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
Rand Paul a Racist? I Think Not.
Sam Barr’s most recent post makes the rather shocking claim that Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky being vacated by the retiring Jim Bunning, is a racist, or at least that he is not a non-racist. Sam deduces this from the fact that Mr. Paul is not a “consistent libertarian,” that he “picks and ... Read More
Representation on the Court
[The Supreme Court's] purpose is not to uphold the interests of individuals (at least not directly), but to faithfully interpret the Constitution.
Justice Stevens Lets Go — Better Hang On!
My Harvard Independent column for this week addresses the retirement of John Paul Stevens and the issue of picking his successor. Read the original here. If they made posters of Supreme Court Justices, I’d put John Paul Stevens on my bedroom wall. The man is a progressive hero — first and foremost, for his longevity. In 2006, the liberal radio ... 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
