The Obama administration is refusing to defend this constitutionality of DOMA as it applies to legally married same-sex couples. Sometimes, elections can have positive consequences!
constitutional interpretation
Dahlia Lithwick and Adam Liptak have good articles about yesterday's oral argument in Bond v. U.S. The substantive issue of the case is whether a law implementing the 1993 Chemical.
D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler issued the latest ruling, reinforcing the partisan trend. Her opinion is a very solid piece of work, and provides a good account of the.
I cited it in my Prospect piece yesterday, but for people interested in the history of the Commerce Clause, I strongly recommend Jack Balkin's forthcoming article. I would add the caveat that I don't think that Balkin's liberal originalism overcomes the objections I have to...
I have an article up at the Prospect on the hot new trend in arguments that policies that Republicans supported until Obama started supporting them represent a massive threat to.
Group A: People who argue that the individual mandate in the ACA is unconstitutional because it must be unconstitutional to force people to "purchase a private product" irrespective of its.
Having discussed the limitations of positivist political science, I attempt to figure it out using my highly sophisticated "educated guess" method. Although it's a "sovereign immunity" case and not a commerce clause case, I think that Hibbs is a better guide to Scalia's vote than...
There's a lot of egregious hackery in Vinson's opinion yesterday. The Wall Street Journal has crossed some of Vinson's hackery with some of its own. I'm not sure if this.
As expected, Vinson struck down the mandate, and also argued that it couldn't be severed. My initial thoughts are up on TAPPED. The short version is that it probably doesn't.
It seems as if at least once of year a conservative comes to explain that it's silly that any liberal would complain about the Hyde Amendment, because it's absurd to think that there could be any "right" to taxpayer funding. We've just gotten another example....
I have some thoughts inspired by Jon Cohn's article about constitutional challenges to the ACA. The short version is that I doubt that even a scenario where the Supreme Court.
I remember when I used to joke about Republicans bringing back Hammer v.Dagenhart. [Update: more explanation here.] Senator Mike Lee provides the punchline himself. It's worth mentioning here that, Lee's claims.