Constitutional Opinions

Constitutional Opinions

Fire in the Jungle

By From the January-February 2014 issue

One of the most memorable moments of my newspaper life was meeting an American GI named Glenn M. Shumway. He was a religious Christian and a conscientious objector to war who served as a medic with the First Air Cavalry in the military region of Vietnam known as III Corps. When I interviewed him for the GI daily, Pacific Stars and Stripes, he’d just been lifted off the jungle floor 90 miles northeast of Saigon, where he’d been trapped, alone and surrounded by the enemy. “Not for a second,” he told me, did he wish he had a weapon.“Ants were crawling over his hands, sweat was pouring off his brow and fogging his glasses, a helicopter was burning less than 10 yards away,” I wrote. “Bamboo on fire was going ‘pop, pop, pop,’ and the Baptist medic was ‘praying that Jesus Christ’s will be done.’” An officer had tried to get Shumway to take a weapon when he’d been inserted into combat, but he’d refused. He didn’t lack for patriotism. He didn’t lack for guts. He just didn’t believe in killing.
Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Mighty Mandate

By From the December 2013 issue

For fans of blind justice few things are as exciting as the drama unfolding in the Second United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the case captioned as Floyd v. New York. It involves the policing practice known as stop-question-and-frisk. This strategy has been pursued by New York’s police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, to make New York the safest big city in the country, if not the world.One would think this would have brought Mr. Kelly—who has held nearly every rank in the New York Police Department—the Nobel Prize, particularly because the victims of crime in New York are overwhelmingly members of the minority community. Instead, Kelly’s campaign has made him a lightning rod for leftist sentiment, which has now come to a head in the most astonishing fashion.
Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Winning the ‘War on Women’

By 11.25.13

When the Supreme Court is in session, one or two afternoons each week are reserved for closed-door conferences during which the justices discuss petitions for writs of certiorari. These petitions, in ordinary English, are requests by litigants for the Court to review cases that have been inconclusively adjudicated by lower courts. Such requests often involve high profile public controversies, and those scheduled for discussion on Tuesday fit comfortably into that category. Tomorrow, the justices will confer about Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius and Autocam v. Sebelius, all of which challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

That the justices will discuss these cases does not by any means guarantee that they will agree to hear any of the three. The Court has several options, as Geoffrey Surtees at the American Center for Law and Justice points out:

Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Conventional Thinking

By 11.7.13

Reflections on Mark Levin's brilliant call for a convention of the states.
Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Conventional Thinking

By From the November 2013 issue

POLITICS 'HAVE REACHED civil war levels’…” was the headline on the Drudge Report the other day. It linked to a story in National Journal quoting Sen. Tom Harkin as saying, “We are at one of the most dangerous points in our history.” It quoted Sen. Ted Cruz likening the Republican moderates to the appeasers at Munich. Another article quoted an aide to President Obama as comparing Republicans to “terrorists, kidnappers, arsonists…” Yet another quoted the Senate’s chaplain as saying “Lord, deliver us from governing by crisis.”
Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Ex Parte Scalia

By From the October 2013 issue

IF WE CONSTITUTIONAL fundamentalists ever triumph in the courts, the person to have whispering the reminder that all glory is fleeting would be Hendrik Hertzberg. A former chief speechwriter for President Carter and now a writer for the New Yorker, he is an honest liberal—and a crafty constitutionalist. He is just out with a column on the only remaining feature of the Constitution that the parchment itself says can’t be amended, namely the equal representation in the Senate of each state, no matter what its population.  Hertzberg’s column came up on the scope when I started poking around about the logic of the Senate, which has been creeping into the national conversation. There was the 13-hour filibuster against drones mounted by Rand Paul. There are all of Harry Reid’s threats to use the “nuclear option”—to change the chamber’s rules so that certain filibusters can be ended with just a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes now required.
Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Just Say ‘No’ to Government

By 10.23.13

In an exclusive excerpt from his new book, the man who argued for the plaintiffs in the battle over handguns in the District of Columbia explains what's wrong with our nation's courts.
Send to Kindle

Constitutional Opinions

Fed Up Yet?

By From the September 2013 issue

There are more important things than whether the next Federal Reserve chairman will be a man or a woman.
Send to Kindle

Pages