Constitutional Government

So much of the debate about the Second Amendment is in scholarly journals and academic papers written by scholars and judges, or directed towards other scholars, law professors, attorneys, and judges. Trying to wade through the extensive footnotes and references to legal cases and historical precedents known only to the academic elite is more than enough to make anyone feel hopeless.

The rise of the administrative state is the most significant political development in American politics over the past century. While our Constitution separates powers into three branches, and requires that the laws are made by elected representatives in the Congress, today most policies are made by unelected officials in agencies where legislative, executive, and judicial powers are combined. This threatens constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. Get Trump makes clear that unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump from retaking the presidency challenge the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech.

All Americans, liberal or conservative, religious or not, can agree that religious freedom, anchored in conscience rights, is foundational to the US democratic experiment. But what freedom of conscience means, what its scope and limits are, according to the Constitution - these are matters for heated debate.

The issue is freedom: The liberty our founders gave us, or an increasingly intrusive government. If we give up our freedom, what will that do to our lives and our economy? This book presents what is undoubtedly the most comprehensive case for freedom and against statism available today. Every citizen should listen to it. Statism is the belief that government should control our lives. It is manifest in socialism, communism, dictatorship, and simple unlimited government. It is the opposite of freedom.

We hear it every day: government spending is out of control. Yet, despite all the rhetoric coming out of Washington about the need to cut spending, we continue to go deeper and deeper into debt. If we're serious about restoring America to fiscal health, we must do something about government spending, not just talk about it. So argues U.S. Senator Mike Lee in his new book, The Freedom Agenda.

Instead of the system that the Constitution intended, judges have created a system in which bureaucrats and appointed officials make most of the important policies. While the government claims to be a representative republic, somehow hot-button topics from gay marriage to the allocation of Florida's presidential electors always seem to be decided by unelected judges. What gives them the right to decide such issues? The judges say it's the Constitution.

In this incisive and insightful book from 2006, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano peels back the legal veneer and shows how politicians, judges, prosecutors, and bureaucrats are trampling the US Constitution in the name of law and order and fighting terrorism.

You are there, in 1787 at America's constitutional convention, with the inside story as veteran print and broadcast journalist Jeffrey St. John "reports" each day's proceedings, flavoring his dispatches with quotes from private correspondence and notes of the delegates.

Constitutional originalism stakes law to history. The theory's core tenet—that the United States Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning—has us decide questions of modern constitutional law by consulting the distant constitutional past. Yet originalist engagement with history is often deeply problematic. In this comprehensive and novel critique of originalism, Jonathan Gienapp targets originalists' unspoken assumptions about the Constitution and its history.

The volume reviews modern US Supreme Court landmark cases relating to the topic of abortion. Cases covered include Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, Gonzales v. Carhart, and recent developments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. The book reviews the decisions and rationale of the Court and how it has evolved. The oral arguments and opinion announcements from key cases are also included.

Since America's founding, the US Supreme Court had issued a vast number of decisions on a staggeringly wide variety of subjects. And hundreds of judges have occupied the bench. Yet as Cass R. Sunstein, the eminent legal scholar and best-selling co-author of Nudge, points out, almost every one of the Justices fits into a very small number of types regardless of ideology: the hero, the soldier, the minimalist, and the mute.

What would the Framers of the Constitution make of multinational corporations? Nuclear weapons? Gay marriage? They led a preindustrial country, much of it dependent on slave labor, huddled on the Atlantic seaboard. The Founders saw society as essentially hierarchical, led naturally by landed gentry like themselves. Yet we still obey their commands, two centuries and one civil war later. According to Louis Michael Seidman, it's time to stop.

This is an audio recording of Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, issued by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and the Majority Staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary on December 7, 2019.

Challenging familiar understandings of race, rights, and American law, Is Racial Equality Unconstitutional? explores how current equal-protection law renders the pursuit of racial equality constitutionally suspect.

Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential.

The liberal arts university has been in decline since well before the virtualization of campus life, increasingly inviting public skepticism about its viability as an institution of personal, civ­ic, and professional growth. New technologies that might have brought people together have instead frustrated the university’s capacity to foster thoughtful citizenship among tomorrow’s lead­ers and exacerbated socioeconomic inequalities that are poison­ing America’s civic culture.

The Constitution was once the bedrock of our country, an unpretentious parchment that boldly established the God-given rights and freedoms of America. Today that parchment has been shred to ribbons. An important follow-up to Judge Napolitano's best-selling Constitutional Chaos, this book shows with no-nonsense clarity how Congress has "purchased" regulations by bribing states and explains how the Supreme Court has devised historically inaccurate, logically inconsistent, and even laughable justifications to approve what Congress has done.

El contenido de esta obra se encuentra distribuido en 16 capítulos en los que abordamos diversos temas tales como la protección de los derechos de los privados de libertad, el Concordato suscrito entre la Republica Dominicana y la Santa Sede en 1954, la dignidad como fundamento del estado social, democrático y de derecho, la especial trascendencia o relevancia constitucional, los Estados de Excepción y los derechos fundamentales en la Republica Dominicana, el derecho de propiedad, la constitucionalización del derecho penal y del municipal, entre otros.

On June 25, 2013, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, invalidating a key provision of voting rights law. The decision - the culmination of an eight-year battle over the power of Congress to regulate state conduct of elections - marked the closing of a chapter in American politics. That chapter had opened a century earlier in the case of Guinn v. United States, which ushered in national efforts to knock down racial barriers to the ballot.