Burt Likko makes an ambitious proposal.
The Democratic Party is collapsing, and has been collapsing for a decade. Having the Presidency just hid all the rot happening elsewhere. Now we face the prospect of one party rule in a way we have not seen before, led by a type of President we have not seen before.
Guest Author T. Greer eulogizes the neglect of our literary heritage in contemporary rhetoric.
Burt Likko thinks that Citizens United and McCutcheon were correctly decided. But how can he square that conclusion with his recent Ordinary Court opinion?
The Ordinary Court’s majority moves on to the final issue left in the case, and issues its ruling.
Tim Kowal agrees the Greens have individual standing, but suggests the corporation is the appropriate party to assert their claims.
In Part III of the Ordinary Court’s treatment of the Hobby Lobby case, the Ordinary Justices’ voting pattern shifts, with dramatic results.
Part II of the opinion, dealing substantively with whether Hobby Lobby can state a claim for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The first part of the Ordinary Court’s treatment of one of this year’s most-publicized legal cases. To begin, we must understand the factual and legal landscape.
Introducing a new project by some of the lawyers and scholars writing for Ordinary Times: The Ordinary Court.
A Federal Court found yesterday that the NSA does, in fact, routinely violate your Constitutional rights. The reason why is very likely within your arm’s reach right now.
A modest proposal to make NSA searches of electronic communications subject to the Constitution but still effective at national security.
It comes with the territory obviously, but its predictability doesn’t make it any less ridiculous or frustrating. Jeffrey Toobin and David Brooks have fired the first shots, outlining the many failings of Edward Snowden because...
Today’s story about the Justice Department obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records from the Associated Press, apparently without a warrant and without any sort of prior notice to the people or entity thus...
The biggest cause of confusion faced by Originalists—the folks who think the Constitution means what it originally did in the late 1700s—isn’t the one you’d probably guess at first. You’d probably guess it has to do with how we can know what 18th century Americans were thinking. And how can anyone know what Americans more than two and a quarter centuries ago thought “due process” was, or what a “reasonable search and seizure” was? We can hardly get consensus on […]
The biggest cause of confusion faced by Originalists—the folks who think the Constitution means what it originally did in the late 1700s—isn’t the one you’d probably guess at first. You’d probably guess it has...
Note: This post is part of our League Symposium on Guns In America. You can read the introductory post for the Symposium here. To see a list of all posts in the Symposium so...
Does the Constitution assume certain presuppositions on the part of those it means to govern? If so, what are those presuppositions? I submit the answer to the first question is yes, and explain the...
A certain kind of religious activist takes it as a given, and as an imperative, that the Decalogue must be displayed prominently on and in public buildings. Gratefully, these folks are rare; sadly, they have influence...